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

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Jul 2001

  Jul 1:

   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [70]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks - Brad Sparks [231]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - - Serge Salvaille [24]
   Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [214]
   Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [61]
   Re: Study Without Interference? - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [24]
   Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau - Still Open! - - Haiko Lietz [26]
   Re: UFO Research Day - Sanchez-Ocejo - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [25]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Cammack - Diana Cammack [22]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Hall - Richard Hall [44]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez - John Velez [114]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Gates - Robert Gates [62]

  Jul 2:

   Soundtrack From The Movie 'Roswell'? - Giuliano 'Jimmy' Marinkovic [37]

  Jul 1:

   Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman - Stan Friedman [196]

  Jul 2:

   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks - Brad Sparks [21]
   Re: Study Without Interference? - Blanton - Terry Blanton [30]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle - Kevin Randle [33]
   Re: Study Without Interference? - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [40]
   Re: Study Without Interference? - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [15]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [73]
   Hessdalen Project Researchers Step Up Hunt - Ron Cecchini [44]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Rabdle - Kevin Randle [73]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Wilson - Katharina Wilson
   [103]
   Re: Study Without Interference? - Kelly - Christopher Kelly [79]
   Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - David Rudiak [132]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman - Stan Friedman [74]
   Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - John Velez [28]
   Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble - - Greg Sandow [11]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow - Greg Sandow [29]
   CCCRN News: 07-02-01 - Paul Anderson [74]
   Raelian Cloning - Bob Young [6]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [84]
   Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble - - Richard Hall [25]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Hall - Richard Hall [31]

  Jul 3:

   'Branton' - Another Researcher Sidelined - 'Atlantis' [167]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall - Richard Hall [120]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [275]
   Re: Soundtrack From The Movie 'Roswell'? - Davids - Paul Davids [26]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [77]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Sparks - Brad Sparks [297]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Sparks - Brad Sparks [85]
   Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Chris Rolfe [50]
   Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [74]
   Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble - - Greg Sandow [23]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [242]
   Thoughts From MUFON-CES - Hannes la Rue" [60]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [18]
   Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble - - John Velez [60]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... Randle - Kevin Randle [217]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sandow - Greg Sandow [56]

  Jul 4:

   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Young - Bob Young [25]
   Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [149]
   Filer's Files #27 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [488]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [37]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [24]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [173]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - - Jim Mortellaro [87]
   Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Strickland - Sue Strickland [47]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young - Bob Young [108]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - - Sue Strickland [56]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young - Bob Young [48]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [26]
   CCCRN NEWS - Formation Report 2001 #4 - Etzikom, - Paul Anderson [32]
   CCCRN News: Formation Report 2001 #5 - Surrey, - Paul Anderson [43]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [119]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez - John Velez [269]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Hall - Richard Hall [92]

  Jul 5:

   Re: Barney Barnett - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [23]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Carey - Tom Carey [56]
   Re: ho Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Caput - Scott Caput [42]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [57]
   Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Velez - John Velez [67]
   Follow-Up On Injustice - John Velez [28]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Stacy - "Dennis Stacy" [36]
   Scanner Info For FAA/Airport/Aircraft Comms. - - Jim Mortellaro [7]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [29]
   Mars Patrol 07-01-01 - GT McCoy [36]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sandow - Greg Sandow [22]
   Cydonian Imperative: 07-05-01 - Possible Hexagon - Mac Tonnies [38]
   Re: erious Research/Coyne Case - Sparks - Brad Sparks [131]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Sparks - Brad Sparks [261]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [81]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Cameron - Grant Cameron [48]
   '2001' Actor at Roswell UFO Festival - Steven L. Wilson, Sr [26]
   Sheehan @ MUFON Symposium - Grant Cameron [32]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Velez - John Velez [62]

  Jul 6:

   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [21]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - - Bruce Maccabee [44]
   Re: Serious Research - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [94]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [258]
   Re: Serious Research - Hall - Richard Hall [58]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [33]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [98]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sparks - Brad Sparks [51]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Hall - Richard Hall [35]
   Re: Follow-Up On Injustice - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [70]
   Re: Scanner Info For FAA/Airport/Aircraft Comms. - - Giuliano 'Jimmy'
   Marinkovicc [58]
   Re: UFO Cult May Sue U.S. FDA Over Cloning - - Sue Strickland [41]
   CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Brad Sparks [118]
   Re: A 16th Century Disc - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [67]
   Re: Follow-Up On Injustice - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [20]
   THE WATCHDOG - 07-05-01 - Royce J. Myers III [15]
   Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Velez - John Velez [38]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - - Jim Mortellaro [66]
   Re: Mars Patrol 07-01-01 - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [50]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [55]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Hall - Richard Hall [21]
   Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Geib - Dab Geib [18]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall - Richard Hall [115]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [59]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - - Jim Mortellaro [55]
   Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Strickland - Sue Strickland [15]
   Internet Scam - Bruce Maccabee [27]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Hall - Richard Hall [75]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Dennis Stacy [74]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [53]
   Re: Serious Research - Strickland - Sue Strickland [237]

  Jul 7:

   Re: Internet Scam - Hall - Richard Hall [40]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young - Bob Young [29]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [17]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cmaeron [82]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Rolfe - Chris Rolfe [55]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks - Brad Sparks [72]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Sparks - Brad Sparks [38]
   Re: Serious Research - Sparks - Brad Sparks [73]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sparks - Brad Sparks [30]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cmaeron [320]
   Re: Serious Research - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [28]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [17]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Gates - Robert Gates [30]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Gates - Robert Gates [52]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Gates - Robert Gates [17]
   Re: Internet Scam - Hatch - Larry Hatch [62]
   Joseph Randazzo? - A. J. Gevaerd [9]
   Re: Internet Scam - McCoy - GT McCoy [52]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [14]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [103]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [48]

  Jul 10:

   UFO UpDates Back Up - Again - UFO UpDates - Toronto [30]

  Jul 8:

   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [28]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [25]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - - Jim Mortellaro [45]
   Re: Serious Research - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [20]
   Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - - Jim Mortellaro [73]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall - Richard Hall [91]
   Re: The Nigerian Scam - Wendy Christensen [13]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks - Brad Sparks [61]
   Re: Serious Research - Strickland - Sue Strickland [57]
   Re: Serious Research - Strickland - Sue Strickland [68]
   Re: Serious Research - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [114]
   UFOs & Government Protocols - Grant Cameron [79]
   Re: Talk And Action - Sparks - Brad Sparks [36]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Sparks - Brad Sparks [334]
   Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report' - Jean-Philippe Dain [36]
   Cydonian Imperative: 07-08-01 - High Acceptance of - Mac Tonnies [16]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [65]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young - David Rudiak [394]
   Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs - Part 1 - Grant Cameron [441]
   Re: Marcia Smith Letter - Cameron - Grant Cameron [43]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [66]

  Jul 9:

   Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Gates - Robert Gates [83]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [37]
   CCCRN News: 07-09-01 - Formation Report 2001 #5 - - Paul Anderson [38]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [197]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle - Kevin Randle [80]
   More Evidence For Life On Mars - Nick Balaskas [28]
   Re: The Nigerian Scam - Woods - Michael Woods [29]
   Recent Kentucky Animal Mutilations - Kenny Young [70]
   Secrecy News -- 07/10/01 - Steven Aftergood [150]
   Re: Serious Research - Hall - Richard Hall [61]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [22]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [47]

  Jul 10:

   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - - Wendy Christensen [30]
   Re: The Nigerian Scam - Hatch - Larry Hatch [36]
   Re: Marcia Smith Letter - Hall - Richard Hall [57]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall - Richard Hall [55]
   Re: The Nigerian Scam - Woods - Michael Woods [73]
   Scotland's 'Daily Record' - 'UFO Invasion' Article - UFO UpDates -
   Toronto [63]

  Jul 11:

   Re: UFOs & Government Protocols - Sparks - Brad Sparks [141]
   Re: Serious Research - Strickland - Sue Strickland [38]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Sparks - Brad Spaarks [20]
   John Hopf? - Gary Anthony [5]
   Re: Serious Research - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [38]
   Filer's Files #28 -- 2000 - George Filer [472]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [49]
   Re: Marcia Smith Letter - Cameron - Grant Cameron [34]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks - Brad Sparks [51]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [27]
   CCCRN News: 07-10-01 Formation Report 2001 #4 - - Paul Anderson [29]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [36]
   Re: UFOs & Government Protocols - Young - Bob Young [89]
   Re: Serious Research - Strickland - Sue Strickland [115]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Kaeser - Steve Kaeser [21]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Rudiak - David Rudiak [13]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks - Brad Sparks [51]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [199]

  Jul 12:

   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [41]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.] - David RudiakDRudiak@aol.com
   [475]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 2.] - David RudiakDRudiak@aol.com
   [253]
   Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [82]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [41]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [30]
   Re: Talk And Action - Young - Bob Young [38]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [64]
   CCCRN News: 07-12-01 Formation Report 2001 #5 - - Paul Anderson [81]

  Jul 13:

   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Gates - Robert Gates [34]
   Re: The Nigerian Scam - Hatch - Larry Hatch [63]
   Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report' - - Gildas Bourdais [115]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [80]
   Secrecy News -- 07/12/01 - Steven Aftergood [81]
   Chilean Senator Vs. Chupacabras - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [63]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [42]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.] - Randle - Kevin Randle [36]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young - Bob Young [68]
   Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report' - - Richard Hall [67]

  Jul 14:

   Skywatcher News Update - Bill Hamilton [20]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Bill Hamilton [75]
   Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Rimmer - John Rimmer [25]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.] - Cameron - Grant Cmaeron [48]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [77]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron - Grant Cameron [40]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.] - Rudiak - David Rudiak [42]
   Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence - Grant Cameron [35]
   'Russian Crop Circles Show Aliens Returned' - TASS - Steven L. Wilson,
   Sr [18]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [489]
   Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Strieber Replies - David Rudiak [67]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [88]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [295]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [81]
   Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Blanton - Terry Blanton [25]
   Re: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence - - Richard Hall [48]
   Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Sparks - Brad Sparks [30]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez - John Velez [122]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks - Brad Sparks [131]
   Cydonian Imperative: 07-14-01 - Large Geometric - Mac Tonnies [13]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall - Richard Hall [83]
   Re: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence - - Alfred Lehmberg
   [75]
   US Congress Hears Alien Life Testimony - UFO UpDates - Toronto [80]

  Jul 15:

   A UFO Fraud Exposed? - Paul Stonehill [3]
   Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Hale - Roy J Hale [10]
   Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Gates - Robert Gates [36]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young - Bob Young [204]

  Jul 16:

   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young - Bob Young [44]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young - From: Bob Young [43]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez - John Velez [129]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young - Bob Young [57]
   Re: UFOs & Government Protocols - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [247]
   Re: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence - - Jan Aldrich [63]
   Simone Mendez? - Karl T. Pflock [10]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Sparks - Brad Sparks [24]
   Re: A UFO Fraud Exposed? - Sparks - Brad Sparks [14]
   Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Richard Hall [32]
   Re: A UFO Fraud Exposed? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [19]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman - Stan Friedman [84]
   Mel Gibson & Crop Circles - Donald Ledger [4]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman - Stan Friedman [91]
   Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript - Grant Cameron [722]
   Pflock's 'Roswell - A Review - UFO UpDates - Toronto [32]
   Voyager Newsletter No. 18 - James Easton [176]
   El Chupacabra Lives! - Loren Coleman [48]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Young - Bob Young [24]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Blanton - Terry Blanton [12]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [14]
   Re: Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript - Hall - Richard Hall [55]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Velez - John Velez [62]
   40th Anniversary Of The Hill's Abduction - Ron Cecchini [6]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Young - Bob Young [20]
   Request On Behalf Of An Abductee - Jim Klotz [16]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Morris - Neil Morris [41]
   Discovery Channel Documentary - Jason Ciaccia [23]
   Re: Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript - Brad Sparks [296]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hall - Richard Hall [79]
   Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - UFO UpDates - Toronto [72]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman - Stan Friedman [43]

  Jul 17:

   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Gates - Robert Gates [28]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Velez - John Velez [121]
   CCCRN News: Fields of Dreams Webcast Radio Show - Paul Anderson [76]
   Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Velez - John Velez [48]
   Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee - John Velez [56]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hatch - Larry Hatch [29]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [84]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [152]

  Jul 18:

   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez - John Velez [63]
   Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Geib - Dan Geib [20]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [20]
   Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee - Klotz - Jim Klotz [55]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [24]
   Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee - Hall - Richard Hall [62]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [13]
   NASA Celebrates 25Th Anniversary Of Mars Landing - NASANews@hq.nasa.gov
   [100]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hatch - Larry Hatch [35]
   Secrecy News -- 07/17/01 - Steven Aftergood [134]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [228]
   Filer's Files #29 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [521]
   If It's In The Air, Then It's On The Air - Jim Mortellaro [28]
   Humanoid Contact - 1992 - Roy J Hale [14]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Velez - John Velez [113]
   Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [93]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Murray - Martin 'Marty' Murray
   [31]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman - Stan Friedman [156]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman - Stan Friedman [188]
   Re. Discovery Channel Documentary - PEER - Will Bueche [86]
   Re: New Jersey Lights - GT McCoy [6]
   Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Velez - John [28]
   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez - John Velez [43]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [98]
   Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - John [95]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Ledger - Donald Ledger [29]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [31]
   'An Enigma Shines Light On Carteret' - UFO UpDates - Toronto [104]

  Jul 19:

   Non-Abductees Anonymous - Ron Cecchini [22]
   Orange/White/Blue Lights & Radiation - Jan Pheneger [81]
   CIA Lawsuit Documents on Project 1947 Website - Jan Aldrich [31]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Ledger - Donald Ledger [20]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Velez - John Velez [56]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Velez - John Velez [56]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [274]

  Jul 20:

   Palm Beach Falling Star - Scott Caput [33]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [273]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [88]
   Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs - Part 2 - Grant Cameron [373]
   Ufology: Proto-Science Or Farce? - Richard Hall [15]
   Secrecy News -- 07/19/01 - Steven Aftergood [103]
   Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article - Michel M. Deschamps [251]
   UFO References At Recent 'SETI/ET Life' Hearings - Giuliano 'Jimmy'
   [109]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [234]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers - Royce J. Myers III
   [15]
   Re: Ufology: Proto-Science Or Farce? - Hale - Roy J Hale [21]
   Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Relationship? - Katharina Wilson
   [14]
   Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Wilson - Katharina Wilson [120]
   Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Wilson - Katharina Wilson [120]
   Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article - - Nick Balaskas [87]

  Jul 21:

   Molecular Electronics - Michael Briggs [20]
   UFO Crash On Plains Of St. Augustin? - Thiago Luiz Ticchetti [6]
   Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article - Hall - Richard Hall [66]
   Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - McCoy - GT McCoy [29]
   38th National UFO Conference, Austin, TX - SMiles Lewis [202]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Gates - Robert Gates [25]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Gates - Robert Gates [17]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hatch - Larry Hatch [23]
   The Watchdog - 07-21-01 - Royce J. Myers III [17]
   Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Hatch - Larry Hatch [67]
   Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article - - Michel M. Deschamps [80]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [24]
   Re: Coming to Blows Over How Valid Science Really - Alfred Lehmberg
   [42]
   Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? - Holger Isenberg [9]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers - Royce J. Myers III
   [40]

  Jul 22:

   Re: Barney Barnett - Carey - Tom Carey [164]
   Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? - - Dennis Stacy [15]
   Cydonian Imperative: 07-22-01 - Unusual "Cells" - Mac Tonnies [24]
   Sighting Report Enterprise, Alabama - Alfred Lehmberg [42]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [37]
   Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [56]
   Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article - - Bill Hamilton [62]
   Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Bill Hamilton [94]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hatch - Larry Hatch [34]
   The Times - Siberia Blast Was 'Volcanic Blowout' - UFO UpDates -
   Toronto [76]
   A Temporary Brain Disturbance - UFO UpDates - Toronto [60]
   Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? - - Serge Salvaille
   [21]

  Jul 23:

   Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? - - Filips Baumanis
   [27]
   Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Hatch - Larry Hatch [116]
   Re: Sighting Report Enterprise, Alabama - - Jim Mortellaro [54]
   Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? - - Jim Mortellaro [33]
   Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - McCoy - GT McCoy [107]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers - Royce J. Myers III
   [56]
   Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [12]
   Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [44]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamlton - Bill Hamilton [42]
   MUFON 2001 Symposium - Melvin Podell [65]

  Jul 24:

   Science's Mything Links - Steve Kaeser [292]
   Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers - Royce J. Myers III
   [26]
   Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [17]
   Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Young - Bob Young [22]

  Jul 25:

   Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - YoungBob2@aol.com [28]
   Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - Rudiak - David Rudiak [70]
   Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Gonzlez Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso [17]
   Scientists Say Meteors Common, Mass Sightings Rare - Steven L. Wilson
   Sr [52]
   Filer's Files #30 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [554]
   Carpenter, Reed & Podell? - Gildas Bourdais [53]
   Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [27]
   Re: Science's Mything Links - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [17]
   Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Haley - Tim Haley [30]
   Secrecy News -- 07/24/01 - Steven Aftergood [90]
   Taming The Multiverse - Kelly [265]
   Alien Hunters See The Light - Steven Kaeser [2]
   Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement - Hall - Richard Hall [27]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [31]
   Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Sandow - Greg Sandow [26]
   Re: heehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais
   [168]

  Jul 26:

   New E-Mail Address For Velez - John Velez [10]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young - Bob Young [31]
   No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium - Brad Sparks [11]
   Alien Hunters Scan The Heavens - Steven L. Wilson, Sr [59]
   Fireball Leaves Burnt Rock - Steven L. Wilson [34]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - McCoy - GT McCoy [71]

  Jul 27:

   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Pheneger - Jan M. Pheneger [29]
   Re: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium - Johnson - James Bond Johnson
   [15]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young - Bob Young [29]
   Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - Rutkowski - Chris Rutkowski [77]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young - Bob Young [28]
   Secrecy News -- 07/26/01 - Steven Aftergood [149]
   Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Grant Cameron [415]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [69]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young, Kenny - Kenny Young [35]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - McCoy - GT McCoy [42]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young, Bob - Bob Young [12]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [53]
   New Article: Wormhole-Stargates by Eric Davis - Colm Kelleher [14]
   Re: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein
   [29]

  Jul 28:

   NASA 'Contact-Like' Fiction - Holger Isenberg [14]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Balaskas - nikos [69]
   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [49]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [70]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Hale - Roy J Hale [28]
   Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - McCoy - GT McCoy [57]
   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [34]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton s
   [69]
   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Cameron - Grant Cameron [46]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [116]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hall - Richard Hall [50]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [34]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Bob Young [64]
   Loud, Long & Hard - Jim Mortellaro [45]
   NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - nikos [97]

  Jul 29:

   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [40]
   Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - Young - Bob Young [80]
   Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young - Bob Young [14]
   Re: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium - Friedman - Stan Friedman [34]
   Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [42]

  Jul 30:

   Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Young - Bob Young [18]
   Nick Pope's Weird World - 07-01 - Georgina Bruni [115]
   Nick Pope's Weird World - 08-01 - Georgina Bruni [120]
   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [82]
   Chile: Carabineros Closed 'Chupacabras' Case - Scott Corrales [98]
   [inexplicata] Nicaragua: UFO Over Granada? - Scott Corrales [88]
   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Young - Bob Young [15]
   Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [46]
   Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [25]
   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [32]

  Jul 31:

   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Young - Bob Young [20]
   CCCRN News: Fields of Dreams Webcast - Paul Anderson [97]
   Secrecy News -- 07/30/01 - Steven Aftergood [138]
   Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [84]
   Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - McCoy - GT McCoy [39]
   Congressman Rohrabacher Mentions Flying Saucers - Jim Deardorff [24]
   Re: Cydonian Imperative: 07-31-01 - Pathfinder - Mac Tonnies [80]
   Cydonian Imperative: 07-31-01 - Pathfinder - Mac Tonnies [80]
   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Clinton, - Alfred Lehmberg [44]
   Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [61]
   Alien Life Discovered? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [24]
   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [53]
   Disclosure Project Witnesses - Kevin Randle [106]
   Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Young - Bob Young [17]





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

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 20:45:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:50:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Maccabee


 >Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: sqquishy@altavista.com
 >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. >

<snip>

 >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.


Amusing facts related to the above:

1) in the FBI file there is a memo which states that Jody Powell
of th Carter administration had contacted the FBI in 1977 to
find ou whether or not there was a UFO project in the FBI (there
wasn't). Although we have no records that I am aware of from
other agencies, one may deduce from the above that Carter did,
indeed, try to find out if there was a UFO project in the
government (details in "THE UFO-FBI CONNECTION")

2) At the request of a CIA employee I prepared a brief
unclassified briefing for Gibbons. (I could not have written a
classified briefing because I didn't know then .and still don't
know.now, any classified UFO information). I was informed of
this on the day before the Rockefeller meeting. I wrote the
executive summary of the briefing (with attachments to follow)
and sent it the morning of the next day. Unfortunately, it was
too late: the meeting had already occurred by the time the
briefing reached Gibbons. That very briefing can be seen 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 >
   Jul > Jul 1

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:23:31 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:54:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks


 >Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: sqquishy@altavista.com
 >Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

<snip>
 >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.

Grant,

Marcia Smith talked to lots of people about UFOs back in the
mid-70's, including me and I'm quoted in her 1976 report. Can
Sheehan _document_ any of this? So far everything is unwritten
hearsay, much of it running contrary to what is previously known
or understood. For example, what evidence is there of any
"classified section of the USAF UFO Project Blue Book"? There is
now available the unsanitized microfilm copies of the BB docs
with all the names of witnesses uncensored plus material that
was suppressed here and there in the public release. These were
released by accident at NARA.

Where are the 1,000 pages from Clinton's S&T Office? Who has
those?

Why doesn't someone _ask_ Carter what he found out?

 >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.

Why would someone with Vatican contacts be asked to participate
in a "highly classified major evaluation" of UFOs and ETI?

 >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.

This makes it seem as if UFOs were the most important subject
of all if it was supposedly covered in the first part of the
only such briefing. But in fact Carter had been briefed by DCI
Bush several times previously at great length in nearly all-day
sessions, on July 5 (not intended as a formal briefing but
turned out that way), July 28, Aug 12, 1976, several briefings
were given to running mate Walter Mondale and Carter-Mondale
staffers by CIA staff. This 4th Carter-Bush meeting was simply
the only briefing by DCI Bush given during the President-elect
period.

Why didn't Carter simply wait a few weeks and order his own DCI
Adm Stansfield Turner (whom I interviewed) to turn over the
refused UFO info?

 >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 CIA website article on the Carter CIA briefings does not
have the word "exotic" in the quote mistakenly given above,
unless you have a different source, and it says it was in
reference to Bush's telephone call to Carter on Nov 5. The CIA
account has a very full description of the Nov 19, 1976,
briefing particularly as to the 45-minute private session with
_both_ Carter and Mondale.

The CIA indicates the first nearly 15 minutes was taken up with
Bush wanting to discuss with Carter a "personal matter," that of
keeping him on as CIA Director, contrary to their agreement in
the phone call two weeks earlier that Bush would resign. Carter
wouldn't budge and Bush described him as "very cold or cool."

During the remaining 30+ minutes of the private session Bush
described the sensitive programs that he had mentioned two weeks
earlier in the phone call were the reason he wanted to give
Carter the briefing. We know from other sources that the CIA and
other agencies had a number of sensitive projects which were
exposed publicly around this time or about to be exposed -- the
CIA mail-opening project, domestic surveillance, Glomar Explorer
project to recover the Soviet nuclear sub, the tapping of the
Soviet underwater cable connection, etc. The CIA account states:

[BEGIN QUOTE FROM CIA WEBSITE] His private session with Carter
gave Bush the opportunity to inform the President-elect of a
variety of sensitive human-source and technical collection
programs. In the first such session since Kennedy was briefed by
Allen Dulles on covert action activities in Cuba, the DCI took
30 minutes or more to inform Carter of specific operational
undertakings he needed to be aware of early in his presidency.
He also showed Carter and Mondale samples of reporting from
sensitive sources, underscoring that the lives of CIA assets
were literally at stake. Bush underscored that if the
President-elect felt he needed additional information he could,
of course, contact CIA. The DCI also used the occasion of the
small group meeting to show the President-elect a copy of the
President's Daily Brief. He described the distribution of the
publication and informed Carter that President Ford had approved
providing it to him on a daily basis starting immediately. This
subject was to be discussed further in the larger briefing
session.

In all, Bush described to the President-elect more than a dozen
sensitive CIA programs and issues. At the time of the briefing,
and when discussing it some 17 years after the fact, Bush was
puzzled that Carter had virtually no comment and asked no
questions during the whole session. He had not indicated whether
he thought the operations were good or bad, or that he was
surprised or not surprised. He asked for no follow-up action or
information. Bush commented that Carter "seemed a little
impatient, he didn't say much but seemed to be a little turned
off. He tended to moralize."[111]

In fact, Carter was "turned off" and uncomfortable with many of
the Agency's sensitive collection programs. He ordered some
discontinued during the brief period when Henry Knoche served as
Acting Director from late January to early March 1977. There was
only one item raised in the discussion of sensitive matters
between Bush and Carter to which the President-elect reacted
positively. Somewhat incongruously, Bush had taken with him to
Plains a letter to the President-elect from John Harper, rector
of St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, DC, inviting
President Carter to worship there. Without a moment's thought,
the President-elect said that he felt sure he would be able to
do this.

Bush was obviously relieved when the smaller session was
finished and he and Carter joined the larger group for the
substantive briefings. The DCI recorded that Carter, in the
larger session that followed, "was very attentive, listening
intently and showing much more warmth in the bigger meeting than
in the smaller..... He called the briefers by their first names.
Actually, he referred to me a little more in this briefing than
he did in the earlier ones where I had the distinct feeling he
was somewhat uncomfortable with my being there." [END QUOTE FROM
CIA WEBSITE]

See: http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/briefing/cia-8.htm

What evidence is there that this 45-minute segment had anything
to do with UFOs?

 >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.

Again, why not wait until he had his own DCI heading CIA? Carter
made it clear in this meeting that Bush was out as CIA Director.
Why would he have to follow Bush's suggestion for getting around
Bush's own refusal to provide info? Even Bush knew he was on his
way out so how could he enforce his own refusal to cooperate
with the soon-to-be President of the United States?

 >" 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."

This makes it sound like a delicate political situation and that
Carter was a weakling who needed to mollify everyone to hold
onto his electoral mandate. But Carter had won by a landslide
and had the electoral mandate to do whatever he wanted. Maybe
this depiction would work better in the 1980 time frame when
Carter had literally overworked himself to the point of
exhaustion and watched as the country and the world come apart
at the seams, as he was shocked at the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, the hostage crisis at our embassy in Tehran, the
"misery index" at home, etc.

The CIA was set up in order to coordinate intelligence from all
different parts of the government and supply it to the President
and his top policymakers. So why didn't Carter wait till he had
his own man at CIA? Isn't that what every President does, get
his own men in positions of authority throughout the government,
men he can trust, who can report back to him? The CIA had gotten
used to having DCI's not be replaced by incoming new
administrations but Ike did it in 1953, and since Carter there
has been a large turnover in DCI's. Bush himself told Carter at
the private briefing that on reflection he would agree that the
President should have his "own man" at CIA in whom he could have
confidence.

 >"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.

By the time Carter became President and had the power to even
have "a major confrontation" Bush was out of the CIA, his last
day was Jan 20, 1977, when Carter was sworn in. Carter appointed
Turner as DCI on Feb 8 and he took office at the CIA on Mar 9,
1977. Why couldn't Carter simply tell Turner to get the UFO info
he wanted? Turner was installed at CIA to shake things up
anyway.

<snip>

 >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.

<snip>

What do these 1,000 pages consist of, what do they say?


Brad Sparks








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

                 Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 23:15:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:55:50 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:18:42 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>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...

<snip>

 >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?

<snip>

The original question, Kevin, was:

"How does one establish the reality of an experience?"

You dedided not to answer this embarassing one.

Selective omission?








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

               Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 22:05:27 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:58:03 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Deardorff


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer
 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 21:37:02 -0700

 >>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 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

 >>"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.

GT, (and John Velez too):

You must have meant "disarm so they can take over?"

 >>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 do recall seeing that his itinerary had a stop in Seattle, and
I think a later stop in Portland. It's probably in his
disclosureproject.com  website somewhere.

 >>"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.

However, I wouldn't fault Greer for preaching friendliness
towards the aliens, unless and until we find out otherwise. In
his press conference, anyway, he pointed out the key datum point
we have regarding alien strategy, and of course that's the fact
that:

(a) they haven't taken over Earth or wiped us out in the past
half century or more. To this I would add the second datum point
that

(b) they haven't shocked societies into chaos by showing up in
force around the world, all at once. While I'm at it, thirdly,

(c) they have been disclosing their presence and capabilities
only gradually and semi-covertly, through UFO sightings,
abductions and such, so as to conform with (b) by never leaving
too much evidence behind.

These are simple deductions drawn from facts that the public can
understand, since they're self evident to those who realize the
UFO phenomenon is for real. They do say something about the
ethics of the aliens in charge of things. Why shouldn't Greer
build on that a bit?

Having said that, I guess I need to respond to John here, too.
It's evident that the aliens carrying out the abductions are
abiding by the same overall rules as the aliens responsible for
our sightings, crop-circle formations and such. They never (so
far) leave enough evidence behind to satisfy hard-nosed,
reputable, respectable, down-to-earth, mainstream scientists.
And the aliens in charge are therefore letting these aliens do
their abductions. My presumption is that they let them do it as
long as they abide by the rules designed to avoid traumatizing
our societies as a whole, because it furthers (c) above. If they
were just to act neutrally or respectfully to their
abductees/contactees/victims, there wouldn't be any motivated
John Velez's around trying to let the world know what's going
on, nor any Whitley Strieber's on radio, nor abductees writing
books, nor academic abductee-researchers trying to tell the
world what's going on. If all these victims were instead just
contactees, treated with respect, which ufologists would simply
ignore or debunk if necessary, it wouldn't further the apparent
alien strategy of motivating us towards demanding and arriving
at disclosure.

 From the abduction phenomenon we can conclude, I think, that the
aliens in charge don't mind sacrificing the well being of the
*relatively* few for the sake of the many (the ends justify the
means if the means are not too violent). They may also be
allowing the abductions to go on so that we can learn that there
are aliens out there who would do to us as they please, if other
aliens weren't around to control it -- just to counteract the
opposite tendency of thinking space is filled with one big
space-brotherhood. The inference I gather from this is that for
a long time to come, after disclosure does eventually happen, we
will need to ally ourselves with aliens who will continue to
look out for us in our "infancy."

 >>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."

 >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.

Well, the other way of looking at it is that we never "fell,"
but started out very low and have a very long ways to climb.

Jim writing now:

 >>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.

It was his presentation, of course. But a reporter is naturally
going to be reluctant to write a newspaper article about what
someone shows on a video, unless he's a movie/TV critic.
Instead, she/he will write about the person giving the
presentation.

 >Actually, I rather like "enthusiasts' better than "believers", I
 >am a Railroad, Airplane,  Automoblie,  and well, UFO too -
 >enthusiast.

Yes, actually that wasn't too bad. But she could have expressed
it more like "those interested in learning what's going on in
the area of UFOs." But that takes up a lot more space, which is
a media no-no.

 >>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.

My own caveat would be that those heading each group's effort
should get together, at least initially, and agree not to
"backstab" each other, as one correspondent has cautioned me.
Greer could promise not to say anything about abductions, which
he'd probably be happy to agree to; and all three could try to
agree not to speculate about alien ethics, beyond giving the
facts that traumatic abductions have been going on and yet we
are all still here, surviving. The public could make up its own
minds on the alien ethics issue after public debate becomes more
open.

 >>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.

Yes, that group would have the toughest assignment. It might
require that they make mention of the other two groups, and
might even require that they mention (a), (b) and (c) above, to
provide some overall balance. But the other problem is that what
seems like the "wacky" could just be part of alien strategy to
prevent premature disclosure and/or be part of alien "magic"
(technology/psychics).

 >(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).

The media are supposed to have seen enough sci-fi alien stuff on
TV by now so as to begin to have a glimmer that what aliens
could do (the aliens who are here and therefore far ahead of us
in many ways) should seem like magic.

 >>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.

But to give it the greater impact that Greer's presentation had,
it would need an advance buildup of the magnitude that his had.

 >>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.

Watch out, now: you may be calling an abductee researcher an
"airhead" for having conveyed the reports that the aliens
communicated briefly via mental telepathy, or whisked the
abductee through a wall, or inserted an implant somewhere
without leaving hardly a scar, etc.  :-)

 >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.

The fact that there's a great abduction phenomenon going on
suggests that the aliens do want us to get that news out. But
perhaps they want us to have a more neutral overall context in
which to place it.

 >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.

Yes, that's one of the big problems. And, it almost takes an
abductee to have the motivation in the first place to undertake
a huge task like that.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 1

               Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 22:32:53 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:59:48 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Deardorff


 >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:50:51 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer

 >>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

 >>SPEAKER: ALIENS MONITOR EARTH
 >>More than 600 UFO enthusiasts
 >>hear N.C. man's theories

 >Hiya Jim,
 >...
 >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.

Hi John,

Well, there were a few other obstacles, too, before they or
other capable ones would 'sign on.' You'll have to refer to my
response to GT McCoy regarding his anti-space-weapons rhetoric.
I believe he's gotten most of his information on that from some
of his ex-military UFO-related witnesses, and doesn't want to
see the Corso mentality prevail of trying to shoot alien craft
down (SDI?) that we don't know are hostile (when the other 99%
of them remain invisible to us, or cloaked).

 >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.

Well, a certain amount of the early sightings involved what
appeared to be alien monitoring -- their collecting specimens of
flora and such, then departing immediately after being
witnessed. Certainly thousands of abductions aren't inconsistent
with their having monitored us too. Their UFOs having hovered
over various missile sites, and remotely disarming the missiles,
suggests they have long since had a good inventory of all that.

 >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?

I agree that it would have been better had he not mentioned the
"free-energy" topic. However, some of his witnesses swear that
it's all very real, and Greer couldn't ignore that. But it seems
quite unlikely to me that we could switch over to
back-engineered free-energy technology before our science has
had decades or centuries of open research on it to try to get
used to it and make some sense out of it.

 >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!"  :)

I'm not aware of what he's accomplished along those lines. Can
you summarize the hearings a bit, and what they led to?


Regards,


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 >
   Jul > Jul 1

                Re: Study Without Interference? - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 01:48:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 10:01:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Study Without Interference? - Mortellaro


Which is supposed to be a moiety of the prime directive. If we
assume that our visitors exist, have interacted with us and have
managed to get here from wherever they've come from, they must
be advanced in each and every science we know; advanced enough
to understand that the best way to study a species, an electron
or other object, living or not, is to not interfere with it.

Study without interference. If not part of the prime directive
then certainly a scientifically effective methodology.

That being said, there must be another reason(s) for their
interaction with us. For an advanced alien race would know
better than to study by interfering. Which is what I would term
as their modus operandi.

The little bastards have taken some of us without our permission
and studied us similarly. They've performed extensive
experiments on us, collected body fluids, followed us from birth
to old age, studied us, interfered with our minds, emotions and
overall health.

To what end and purpose? Just to study us? Not likely. For if
this was their purpose, they would not have interfered with our
lives to the extent they have.

I would like very much to receive some commentary, off-List if
necessary, on this theme.


Jim Mortellaro

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 >
   Jul > Jul 1

              Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau - Still Open! -

From: Haiko Lietz <hyco@haikolietz.de>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 12:20:17 +0200
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 10:04:34 -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.

 >-------


Hi,

Can anyone send me a scan of Dennis Plunkett's letter? I have
not subscribed to the UK UFO Magazine.

Does anyone have Dennis Plunkett's phone #?

HL








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

                    Re: UFO Research Day - Sanchez-Ocejo

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 09:07:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 10:07:50 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Research Day - Sanchez-Ocejo


We are beginning to receive photographs related to the
International UFO Research Day and the Global UFO Alert.

Glucoart from Argentina sent two pictures of UFOs seeing during
the Global UFO Alert:

http://www.ovni.net/noticias/ufoday2001argentina.jpg
http://www.ovni.net/noticias/ufoday2001argentina2.jpg


 From Malaga, Spain we received a group photograph of the
participants of the MALAGA UFO ALERT IV edition:

http://www.ovni.net/noticias/ufoday2001espana.jpg


 From Venezuela we received a photo of two of the members of
Project Orion:

http://www.ovni.net/noticias/ufoday2001venezuela.jpg


 From Turkey, Erol Erkmen, director of TUVPO sent his picture:

http://www.ovni.net/noticias/ufoday2001turquia.jpg


 From Puerto Rico we received a photograph of one of the ovni.net
teams as they were participating in the Global UFO Alert:

http://www.ovni.net/noticias/ufoday2001ovnipr.jpg


Thank you very much!

Keep sending your photos of the International UFO Research Day
to DiaOvni@ovni.net



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 >
   Jul > Jul 1

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Cammack

From: Diana Cammack <cammack@eomw.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 17:08:22 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 10:10:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Cammack


 >Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >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.

<snip>

Is Marcia Smith still alive and has anybody checked her
views/version of this story?

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 >
   Jul > Jul 1

                     Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 15:22:26 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 10:14:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Hall


 >Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >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.

<snip>


Dear Grant,

Marcia Smith's UFO papers are in my library, and I'm sure in the
libraries of a lot of UFologists. They are not very thorough and
even contain a lot of obvious errors. They contain zero original
material. CRS consists basically of librarians and researchers
with some scientific and technical consultants, and they do
mostly what amounts to literature reviews for Congress (not for
the White House directly). They do not do independent scientific
research per se.

The bibliography about UFOs and ET life was done as part of the
University of Colorado UFO study, and that's all it is--a
bibliography.

What do we have besides Sheehan's apparent hearsay recollections
to support any of this story about Bush and the CIA? Sheehan
seems not to have understood much of what was going on. Carter
also asked NASA to investigate UFOs and that was turned down.

We need better historical research than Sheehan's word. His own
description of buildings and events in Washington in regard to
the Archives were not credible at all.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 1

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 13:26:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 10:16:26 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:18:42 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>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...

<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.

Hello Kevin,

I believe that I already responded to your question. In case it
wasn't clear in my original, I don't think there are any
similarities between "abduction" reports, and those of "Satanic"
or "ritual" abuse. I used one of my own experiences as an
example.

Cases involving fully conscious UFO contact/encounters (while
the person is wide awake and out and about conducting their
daily business) such as the one I shared, or the reports of
Travis Walton, Debbie Jordan, and many others are ignored by
certain "investigators" in favor of explaining cases where the
individual was at home sleeping when the "abduction" ensued. If
someone is at home and fast asleep when an abduction ensues it
leaves the door open for explanations such as; "sleep paralysis"
etc. But it is not so for the incidents involving fully
conscious individuals who were say; driving home from work,
experience a close-up encounter with a UFO and who subsequently
report either a full blown kidnapping/abduction or missing time.
And who exhibit some 'physical' symptoms afterwards that they
can't explain.

My point is: you cannot apply the "sleep paralysis" explanation
to an individual who is walking home, or driving their car when
the UFO contact and abduction happens. There may be paralysis
reported in these cases as well, but under those circumstances
the perpetrators of the abduction become the source of it, and
not some malfunction either physical or psychological on the
participants part. In the Walton case those 5 guys were driving
home when they encountered the UFO. Debbie and her mom were
their own backyard when the UFO made its incursion onto their
property, I was walking home when I encountered a UFO not 60
feet away from me. Just how does "sleep paralysis" or "Satanic"
anything explain those encounters?

You and other "researchers" want to tackle the cases you think
you can easily dismiss with 'one size fits all' explanations
like "sleep paralysis" or 'Satanic/ritual' abuse etc. You won't
dare go near a Betty & Barney, Debbie Jordan, or Travis Walton
case with your "sleep paralysis" and "the Devil made me do it"
explanations because you already know that; a. it doesn't apply
in those cases, and b. because it will not explain -all- that
was reported in those cases.

So, instead of tackling the 'tough to explain cases' you and
others look to 'pick off' the weak sisters with these "in stock"
explanations that have in recent years become all the rage among
debunkers.

Please explain to me how either "sleep paralysis" or "Satanic
ritual abuse" explains (or even applies to,) the Walton case or
the Debbie Jordan case, or my own for that matter. Then maybe we
can have an intelligent dialog about it. It just seems to me
that yourself and others are "grasping at straws" and that by
"explaining" some abduction reports as either "sleep paralysis"
or "Satanic ritual abuse" you will somehow explain all abduction
reports. That's not only poor "science" it's pure BS and way too
simplistic to explain away the (literally) thousands of reports
of close encounters with UFOs that involve an abduction or
missing time, or physical marks and scars that were sustained
during the encounter.

Please explain to me how any of these "stock" explanations even
applies in the -few- cases I have mentioned. (I have many more
such cases if you need em. But I think these three illustrate my
point very well.) Good luck.

To be perfectly honest Kevin, I'm just more than a little sick
and tired of being told by people who; were not there, or who
have never had a similar encounter, 'what I saw' or 'what really
happened to me' and that it was all a hallucination caused by
sleep paralysis or the result of some nonsense such as Satanic
or ritual abuse. I already told you that I was not asleep, and
that the Devil or his minions had nothing to do with it. So what
else you got for me?

So far, the explanation that not only 'fits' my experience to a
tee, but is corroborated by many, many other individuals is that
I had a run in with an Unidentified flying object, and that the
occupants of the craft took me, performed some kind of
medical-like procedures, and then later returned me to my home.
Because that explanation is abhorrent to you intellectually does
not minimize how well it explains the events that I and others
have experienced.

The shortest distance between any two given points is a straight
line. You and others insist on taking the 'scenic route.'

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 >
   Jul > Jul 1

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 18:29:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 10:22:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Gates


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>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

<snip>

Stan Wrote:

 >>>>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.

Kevin Responded:

 >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.

I was always a little curious about the Barnett story. We know
from all the witnesses that they heard it direct from Barney
Barnett. I realize all the witnesses say that Barney told it on
a "first hand" basis but do we have any writings or anything of
a direct nature that shows that Barnett actually and in fact
told the story on a first hand basis?

I wondered if Barnetts diary been read through its entirety to
make sure there was not some other incident that happened,
perhaps earlier in the 40s or later on say the 50s that he might
have made a note about?

<snip>

 >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.

So why is Anderson apparently still considered to be a _valid_
witness?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 1

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:54:07 -0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 10:50:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>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.

Let us recall it was Ruth's diary _not_ Barney's.

 >>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.

It was Ruth's diary.

 >>>>>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

Not really true. His description of the woman at the grocery
store was immediately recognized by a woman and her mother
living down the road when we visited them unannounced.

 >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.

It is a useful thought except that FlecDanley his boss pinned
down the date. A cowboy and postmistress out in the Plains area
also did.

 >>>>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.

I was the first to locate Drake (an I met with him in Person as
well) and he certainly never told me that he told the 3
companions about what he had been told. They did talk about
flying saucers on the way back. Not about a crashed saucer and
bodies.

 >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.

Sorry Kevin. but Gerald was _not_ in Buskirk's class, no matter
how many ttimes you say he was. Larry Henning did not tell you
he was. I spoke with 5 members of the class, had them all look
at Gerald's High School yearbook picture. None recognized
Gerald, though they all recalled each other. Buskirk didn't say
Gerald was in his class either. The transcript had no entry for
the class.He was in the Seals. He did admit faking the phone
bill. I was indeed upset when I got a copy of the original bill
from the phone company in springfield. This was mostly in
response to the many strange stories you were telling about him.
Pproclamations don't make statements true no matter how often
they are repeated and no matter how well written they are.

 >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.

I thin we definitely agree about the illegitimacy of the film...
and of Corso for that matter as well and on the high reliability
of both Jesse Marcels , etc etc.

 >>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."

Sure don't remember getting anything with that very provocative title

 >KRandle

I leave for Roswell today.....

Maybe some new witnesses will turn up.

I will also be on Coast to Coast radio from there on July 5 and
6. First part of the show each day. and on Jeff Rense on July 12
touting the MUFON Conference with its very highly credentialed
speakers. Not all of whom I agree with.

Remember that the papers will be in the Conference Proceedings.
Hopefully critics will wait until they read them before
launching more attacks.


STFriedman








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

                    Soundtrack From The Movie 'Roswell'?

From: Giuliano 'Jimmy' Marinkovic <c9a4ag@clarc.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 04:54:19 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:45:14 -0400
Subject: Soundtrack From The Movie 'Roswell'?


Hello List,

Does anyone know where I could get soundtrack from the movie
'Roswell'. Yes, I am thinking about the famous TV movie
'Roswell', directed by Jeremy Kagan and produced by Paul Davids.

The composer was Elliot Goldenthall (Interview with the Vampire,
Batman Forever, etc).

That music seems to me it would do great as a background music
for my UFO radio program, it has a conspiracy tone similuar to
John Williams's music for Oliver Stone's legendary JFK.

So, if anyone know where I could get that soundtrack, please
inform me here on the list or personaly on my e-mail. Thanks in
advance.


Best regards


<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Giuliano-Jimmy-Marinkovicc                                  |
|   Zagreb, 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@yahoogroups.com                             |
|   http://groups.yahoo.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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:09:57 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 11:27:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:23:31 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

<snip>

 >>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 CIA website article on the Carter CIA briefings does not
 >have the word "exotic" in the quote mistakenly given above,


CORRECTION: Typo. I meant to put "weapons" in quotes as the word
that doesn't appear in the official CIA account, not "exotic,"
so that it reads: "exotic and very closely held items relating
to sources and methods." That has a totally different meaning
from what Grant Cameron was claiming by putting the extra word
"weapons" into the quote.









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

                  Re: Study Without Interference? - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 11:12:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 11:31:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Study Without Interference? - Blanton


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 01:48:49 EDT
 >Subject: Study Without Interference?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >To what end and purpose? Just to study us? Not likely. For if
 >this was their purpose, they would not have interfered with our
 >lives to the extent they have.

I have contemplated several possibilities and here's one of my
favorites.

Zecharia Sitchin says that half a million years ago or so, the
Annunaki came here to mine the mineral resources of our planet.
Their people complained about the conditions of the mines and
someone suggested that, with a little "MANipulation", the
indigent creatures of this planet could be given enough
intelligence to dig the gold for the Annunaki. The fact that
genetic modification of an native species was in violation of
the prime directive of the Galatic Empire (GE) worried them
little as this planet was far removed from the GE influence at
that time.

The resulting creature not only performed well but also became
"well loved" pets of the Annunaki; and, lo! produced offspring
of such beastial unions - probably a second GE legal issue.
Expansion of the GE eventually exposed the evolutionary
intervention. The guily parties are now charged with cleaning up
this hazardous human waste by DNA remediation. Hence the Greys
keep getting into our genes in hopes of flushing out all the
scars left by our ancestors' abusers.

Look at us, most of us need fixin'. 'Cept Pia, of course.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:22:48 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 11:33:35 -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: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 23:15:39 -0400


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:18:42 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>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...

  <snip>

 >>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?

  <snip>

 >The original question, Kevin, was:

 >"How does one establish the reality of an experience?"

Should have said that it was my original question and not yours.
I had appended mine to yours.

 >You dedided not to answer this embarassing one.

 >Selective omission?

I was waiting for those who have experienced abduction to answer
that question. I thought it a good one.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                Re: Study Without Interference? - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:51:00 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 11:55:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Study Without Interference? - Mortellaro


 >Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 11:12:29 -0400
 >From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Study Without Interference?


 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 01:48:49 EDT
 >>Subject: Study Without Interference?
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>To what end and purpose? Just to study us? Not likely. For if
 >>this was their purpose, they would not have interfered with
 >>our lives to the extent they have.

 >I have contemplated several possibilities and here's one of my
 >favorites.

 >Zecharia Sitchin says that half a million years ago or so, the
 >Annunaki came here to mine the mineral resources of our planet.
 >Their people complained about the conditions of the mines and
 >someone suggested that, with a little "MANipulation", the
 >indigent creatures of this planet could be given enough
 >intelligence to dig the gold for the Annunaki. The fact that
 >genetic modification of an native species was in violation of
 >the prime directive of the Galatic Empire (GE) worried them
 >little as this planet was far removed from the GE influence at
 >that time.

 >The resulting creature not only performed well but also became
 >"well loved" pets of the Annunaki; and, lo! produced offspring
 >of such beastial unions - probably a second GE legal issue.
 >Expansion of the GE eventually exposed the evolutionary
 >intervention. The guily parties are now charged with cleaning
 >up this hazardous human waste by DNA remediation. Hence the
 >Greys keep getting into our genes in hopes of flushing out all
 >the scars left by our ancestors' abusers.

 >Look at us, most of us need fixin'. 'Cept Pia, of course.

 >Regards,

 >Terry

Of course, but an answer worthy of the greatest researcher and
inwestigator on this planet or the original Ann and Nooky
planets.

Sorry I didn't think of this...


Best,

Jim









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

                  Re: Study Without Interference? - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:24:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:54:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Study Without Interference? - Aldrich


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:51:00 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Study Without Interference?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 11:12:29 -0400
 >>From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Study Without Interference?

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 01:48:49 EDT
 >>>Subject: Study Without Interference?
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

Assuming a long lived ET, maybe they are just engaged in a junior high
school science project.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:24:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:02:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 18:29:54 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>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

<snip>

 >Stan Wrote:

 >>>>>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.

 >Kevin Responded:

 >>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.

 >I was always a little curious about the Barnett story. We know
 >from all the witnesses that they heard it direct from Barney
 >Barnett. I realize all the witnesses say that Barney told it on
 >a "first hand" basis but do we have any writings or anything of
 >a direct nature that shows that Barnett actually and in fact
 >told the story on a first hand basis?

 >I wondered if Barnetts diary been read through its entirety to
 >make sure there was not some other incident that happened,
 >perhaps earlier in the 40s or later on say the 50s that he might
 >have made a note about?

Robert, List, All -

Actually, it was Ruth Barnett who kept the diary and she apparently
only kept it for 1947. Someone gave her a daily reminder book and
she turned it into the diary. That's all the information we have.

<snip>

 >>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.

 >So why is Anderson apparently still considered to be a _valid_
 >witness?

I certainly don't consider him to be a valid witness. It is
clear from his past that he cares nothing for the truth and that
he has invented all sorts of tales and created all sorts of
documtents.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                 Hessdalen Project Researchers Step Up Hunt

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 13:26:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:11:15 -0400
Subject: Hessdalen Project Researchers Step Up Hunt

The Hessdalen Project homepage, listed at the bottom, is worth
checking out.

-----

Source: Aftenposten, Norway

http://rigg.aftenposten.no/english/local/d219270.htm

Researchers to step up UFO hunt

Researchers studying mysterious light phenomena in Hessdalen
will now add radar and three new cameras in order to document
the distance and speed of the regularly observed UFOs.

Strange observations are made several times a month in the small
Trndelag village. Powerful lights streak travel across the sky,
linger then vanish.

Researchers from stfold College installed an automatic monitor
in the area and have registered 79 sightings of unexplainable
phenomena.

"The phenomena are so varied that it is difficult to believe
there is a single explanation for them. I have a suspicion that
there are several factors at work behind this mystery," says
Erling Strand, head of Project Hessdalen.

Now the team has invested in radar and new camera, funded by the
stfold College. The hunt is gearing up, and the goal now is to
gauge the distance and velocity of the sightings.

"Until now we have only been able to register phenomena
visually. Now we have mounted two stereo cameras 150 meters
apart. With these we can measure distance. In addition, a third
camera will be able to zoom in on the sightings," Strand
explains.

So far no Norwegian research group has been willing to
contribute to Project Hessdalen. Italian authorities fund a
group of scientist working at Italy's Institute for Radio
Astronomy who study the Hessdalen phenomena, and they will be
visiting Norway this year.

The years 1981 to 1984 bustled with activity in the skies over
Hessdalen and sightings have gradually decreased, with about 20
a year being the current tally. The Hessdalen cameras monitor
the skies 24 hours a day and the pictures are posted directly to
the Internet. The web site has about 500 hits per hour - 85
percent of them from outside of Norway.


Aftenposten Interactive's Norwegian reporter
Krister Olsen

Aftenposten Interactive English Desk
Jonathan Tisdall


LINK
The Hessdalen Project - The web site:

http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml












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

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Rabdle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:24:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:19:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Rabdle


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 18:29:54 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>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

<snip>

 >Stan Wrote:

 >>>>>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.

 >Kevin Responded:

 >>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.

 >I was always a little curious about the Barnett story. We know
 >from all the witnesses that they heard it direct from Barney
 >Barnett. I realize all the witnesses say that Barney told it on
 >a "first hand" basis but do we have any writings or anything of
 >a direct nature that shows that Barnett actually and in fact
 >told the story on a first hand basis?

 >I wondered if Barnetts diary been read through its entirety to
 >make sure there was not some other incident that happened,
 >perhaps earlier in the 40s or later on say the 50s that he might
 >have made a note about?

Robert, List, All -

Actually, it was Ruth Barnett who kept the diary and she apparently
only kept it for 1947. Someone gave her a daily reminder book and
she turned it into the diary. That's all the information we have.

<snip>

 >>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.

 >So why is Anderson apparently still considered to be a _valid_
 >witness?

I certainly don't consider him to be a valid witness. It is
clear from his past that he cares nothing for the truth and that
he has invented all sorts of tales and created all sorts of
documtents.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Wilson

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 13:11:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:22:29 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Wilson


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 23:15:39 -0400

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:18:42 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>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...

 ><snip>

 >>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.

Kevin:

PEER (John Mack's organization) did an anonymous survey (I think
in the mid 1990s) and published the results in their journal
'Peer  Perspectives'. Maybe you could write to them and request
a copy of the journal? I'm sure it is still available even if it
is photocopied.

Also, I thought Dr. Roger Leir was taking blood samples and
urine samples for analysis from abductees after or soon after an
abduction experience to see if anything was detected in their
systems. Have these results been published yet? -- KW

 >>So now back to the original question. John, all, what exactly is
 >>your take on these reports of Satanic Ritual Abuse?

Kevin:

I, too, have to say that from what I've read and learned about
SRA and what I've learned and/or experienced about abductions, I
do not see any similarities between the two. Except for the fact
that in general, people do not seem to believe the victims of
either phenomenon and that the FBI does not believe there is any
proof that either are occurring. (The FBI is a curious group of
individuals, aren't they?) -- KW


 ><snip>

 >The original question, Kevin, was:

 >"How does one establish the reality of an experience?"

 >You dedided not to answer this embarassing one.

Serge:

Perhaps by looking at the definition of "reality" we, as a
group, could discuss how to establish the reality of abduction
experiences.

"Reality" (American Heritage Dictionary)

1. The quality or state of being actual or true.

2. A person, entity, or event that is actual.

3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence,
    or essence.

4. Philosophy: The sum of all that is real, absolute, and
    unchangeable.

As far as (1) goes, if you are an abductee then you have "seen
it for yourself" so to speak, so the experience (at least for
abductees) is "actual" or "true." However, this does not seem to
be the case for people who have not seen it for themselves or
experienced it for themselves, so for them, (1) does not work.

(2) Again, if you have seen an "entity" (interesting term, by
the way) then it is/was real for you. If you have not, then just
because someone says they saw one does not mean that other
people will belive it.

(3) and (4) really don't lead us to any new conclusions...
unless you are a philosopher.

I also think establishing the reality of something, say
extraterrestrials and abductions, is going to be very different
depending on the culture you are dealing with as well as the
medium within that culture. For example, the term "reality" will
be held to a much stronger definition in a court of law than
say, in a textbook written for the public school system in this
country.

Another example in how people look at reality is the difference
between the "reality" of WW II for the Japanese youth of today
verses the "reality" of WW II for Americans who fought there.
Yes, we have film footage and eye witness testimony from the
veterans who fought in the war, but for the Japanese youth who
are taught very different ideas about that war, their "reality"
is very different.

Reality is a much more elusive term than most people realize and
that may be why your question remains unanswered. I think for
many people, the only way an ET abduction is going to be "real"
and part of their "reality" is for them to be abducted by ETs.

Even if we brought twelve live ETs before the cameras on CNN,
there would still be no real proof or "reality" (not all, but in
many people's minds) to abductees' abductions unless the ETs
publicly stated to the world that "Yes, we are abducting people
and performing experiments on them, etc." Then, the ETs
themselves would have to show us their craft, operating rooms,
experimental laboratories, etc. I think they would also have to
show us how they abducted us for some people to believe that it
is all "real."

Before I really thought about the term "reality, " I was pretty
sure what the term really meant, but the word itself is somewhat
elusive when you start thinking about it. I still know what I've
seen and experienced and have no doubts about it, but perhaps,
for the sake of this discussion, there are different levels to
the word itself?

Maybe this is a good place to start the discussion?

Thanks all --

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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                   Re: Study Without Interference? - Kelly

From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 03:25:10 +1000
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:26:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Study Without Interference? - Kelly


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 01:48:49 EDT
 >Subject: Study Without Interference?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Which is supposed to be a moiety of the prime directive. If we
 >assume that our visitors exist, have interacted with us and have
 >managed to get here from wherever they've come from, they must
 >be advanced in each and every science we know; advanced enough
 >to understand that the best way to study a species, an electron
 >or other object, living or not, is to not interfere with it.

 >Study without interference. If not part of the prime directive
 >then certainly a scientifically effective methodology.

 >That being said, there must be another reason(s) for their
 >interaction with us. For an advanced alien race would know
 >better than to study by interfering. Which is what I would term
 >as their modus operandi.

 >The little bastards have taken some of us without our permission
 >and studied us similarly. They've performed extensive
 >experiments on us, collected body fluids, followed us from birth
 >to old age, studied us, interfered with our minds, emotions and
 >overall health.

 >To what end and purpose? Just to study us? Not likely. For if
 >this was their purpose, they would not have interfered with our
 >lives to the extent they have.

 >I would like very much to receive some commentary, off-List if
 >necessary, on this theme.


Ok Jim,

Have you ever watched a special on one of those nature channels
when they are studying, say monkeys? of course you have. As you
know, they take a monkey out of the wild, put it in a cage and
study it, prod it, get it to do simple task and then decide it
isn't as smart as us and sell to a Zoo or Pharmaceutical
company. (Ok I know I am being very sarcastic here, I just
really dislike the way they treat some of these Apes ect,
Sometimes I feel like putting them in the cage and making them
do things for bits of food.) Do they learn anything from this?
some say yes and some say no.

I look at the way ET's study us in much the same way as our
scientist study something. Most it seems, wish to study
something in a controlled environment. Their environment, not
the subjects environment. ET's may do it this way to stop the
spread of diseases to them from us or verse a versa, Lord knows
the Human body has more diseases running around on it than one
can shake a stick at.

 >The little bastards have taken some of us without our permission
 >and studied us similarly. They've performed extensive
 >experiments on us, collected body fluids, followed us from birth
 >to old age, studied us, interfered with our minds, emotions and
 >overall health.

Our scientist take many species out of the wild for all sorts of
reasons without the animal in question permission. It all
depends on what level of respect one has for another species as
to how it is treated. Even Humans have been taken by other
Humans for experimental purposes. If we don't respect our selfs
or other species on our planet why should anyone else?

 >That being said, there must be another reason(s) for their
 >interaction with us. For an advanced alien race would know
 >better than to study by interfering. Which is what I would term
 >as their modus operandi.

I agree totally here, some of the best research into the unknown
of animals and ourselves has been done by simply watching and
learning and not interfering. But the wonderful people that
think this way are too few.

Just what level of interaction with us there is, isn't totally
clear - as we all know. It is interesting to note that
throughout human history there really isn't much in the way of
information or reports about interaction. (one on one
interaction)

I can see why they don't want anything to do with us now, but
what of the past? Surely at some point we would have been worth
a one on one interaction. Maybe there was and we are the
result?

Too many questions, with no one to answer them, or is it as
Nostradamus said. "All the answer are here before us, one first
needs to understand what one sees." It losses something when put
into English.

Anyway, I think you're hitting the right nail on the head here
Jim.

Chris.











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

                     Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:57:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:29:46 -0400
Subject: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials


Please check out the following interesting UPI article titled
'Army Exploring Nanotechnology And Robotics' over on the
Sightings Web site:

http://sightings.com/general11/nan.htm

It describes how the Army now realizes the tremendous potential
of the emerging field of nanotechnology to develop "super"
materials. Nanotechnology is the science of assembling materials
literally on an atom by atom basis to create perfect materials.
These materials, according to computer modeling, could be made
much stronger, harder, and more heat resistant than anything we
can manufacture today. The materials could have active
properties, like living tissue, and also be highly integrated.
All electronics could be built right in.

In the excerpt below, notice how the article talks about
creating body armor that theoretically could be 2 or even 3
orders of magnitude lighter in weight than present armor.
Something as thin as a piece of paper could stop a .45 caliber
bullet. Furthermore, it could have electronics and power supply
integrated right into the armor.

------------
Q. How much is the Army going to use nanotechnology, say,
   over the next decade?

A. The university laboratories have been making pretty good
   progress in nanoscience. And technology follows science.
   Until you understand the science you can't move into
   technology efforts. You have to have equipment to allow for
   the fabrication of materials and devices on the nanoscale. So
   we have to have a good characterization before we are ready
   to move into the fabrication and application state. We'll see
   progress in the field of materials, new materials and our new
   Institute For Soldier Nanotechnology will focus on soldiers'
   uniforms.

   Our first step is to develop a uniform, using nanoscale
   materials to integrate electronics, computer devices and
   power supply. And for ballistic protection. For example,
   today if you want to stop a .45 caliber bullet you need about
   10 to 20 pounds per square foot. Where we are headed with
   nanoscience and technology is the ability to stop a bullet
   with as much as two or three orders of magnitude less in
   pounds, something as thin and light as a piece of paper
   stopping a .45 caliber bullet. That's the potential. If we
   could drop this under one pound per square foot we've made
   dramatic progress. So, our mark on the wall is more than a
   factor of 10 drop in that ballistic protection. Also, we hope
   to get technologies into the marketplace so volumes will grow
   and prices will drop.

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

Why do I bring this up on a UFO List? When I first read the
testimony about the unusual properties of the Roswell debris, I
was immediately fascinated, a fascination that continues to this
day. I was struck by the consistent descriptions of the physical
properties from people who apparently didn't even know one
another. The materials were described as extremely lightweight,
yet exceptionally hard and exceptionally tough. Knifes couldn't
mark this material or cut it. Some thin metal material couldn't
be bent, no matter how much pressure was applied. Sledgehammers
had no effect. It was unaffected by flame. Some thin metal
material had active properties or "memory." It could be wadded
up and yet unfold to its original shape without creasing. In one
account, a witness was told a rigid, thin metal material
supposedly from the interior, also glowed when energized with
electricity.

At the time I read this, the properties seemed to be almost
impossible. How could some sort of thin metal material like
aluminum foil be unbendable or uncuttable. How could thin beams
as light as balsa wood be completely unbreakable or unmarkable?

When I began to read about the emerging field of nanotechnology
a few years ago, I realized that the Roswell materials were far
from impossible. Scientists were talking about creating a new
generation of materials with remarkably similar "super"
properties. But when we first started getting descriptions of
such materials in 1978 and 1979 from people like Jesse Marcel or
Bill Brazel, nobody knew anything about this. Yet they were
describing materials that could only be created by an advanced
technology that had mastered nanotechnology.

Integration through nanotechnology could also explain the
relative lack of variety of debris. A ship's skin could do more
than just streamline the craft, provide protection, and separate
inside from outside. It could have built-in sensors, lights,
computational devices, and energy supply. On casual inspection,
it might look like a simple thin metal material, but only on
microscopic inspection might one see that it carries out a
multitude of functions.

One class of super materials that has emerged from labs in just
the last 10 years is carbon nanotubules, microscopically thin
tubes of carbon threads, essentially rolled up tubes of ordinary
graphite sheets. Think of a "chicken-wire" network of
interlinked carbon atoms rolled up into a tube. These
microscopic fibers have tensile strengths up to 100 times that
of steel. They are believed to be the strongest possible
material that can be made. More research has shown them to be
highly flexible. Their electrical properties can be modified so
that they have properties like semiconductors, or can be made
nearly superconducting. They can carry very high current
densities without melting like ordinary metals.

Thus, if we could manufacture lengthy cables of such material,
they could be much thinner and lighter than copper wire and
carry electricity with less energy loss, a tremendous boon to
electrical energy transmission. With their tremendous strength,
suspension bridges could be built out of thin ropes rather than
enormous steel cables. (If you wanted the cables to glow at
night for visual effect, that could probably be built-in as
well.)

One commecial application than could emerge very soon is using
nanotubules as electrodes in thin panel display devices,
previously hampered by rapid deterioration of standard metal
electrodes from high tcurrent densities and temperatures. See,
e.g., Scientific American, December 2000.

The same article also discusses how they might be used in the
fabrication of computer circuits to get around some of the
current limitations in shrinking the integrated circuits even
further. Because they can be such good conductors of electricity
and are so thin, they can be used to carry current more
efficiently within integrated circuits rather than using
standard metallic traces. Their outstanding thermal
conductivities can also be used to dissipate heat build-up in
the circuit.

Imagine an aircraft hull made of nanotubule fabric. It would be
incredibly strong, far stronger than anything we have today. If
you wadded it up, it would probably spring back to its original
shape without creasing. It would appear metallic, but would be
much lighter than ordinary metals of the same thickness. It's
ability to withstand heat would be comparable to diamond (which
doesn't vaporize until it reaches temperatures of over 4000 deg
F). Ordinary flames would have no effect on it. It's outstanding
thermal conductivity would enable the hull to distribute
frictional heat efficiently over the surface and rapidly
dissipate it. Depending on the weave, it could be porous. It
might resemble some type of metallic cloth.

Every one of the above properties was attributed to some of the
Roswell debris over 20 years ago. Certainly nobody knew back
then that such a combination of properties was possible.
Needless to say, I don't think this is coincidence.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:33:52 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:33:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 18:29:54 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>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

 ><snip>

 >Stan Wrote:

 >>>>>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.

 >Kevin Responded:

 >>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.

 >I was always a little curious about the Barnett story. We know
 >from all the witnesses that they heard it direct from Barney
 >Barnett. I realize all the witnesses say that Barney told it on
 >a "first hand" basis but do we have any writings or anything of
 >a direct nature that shows that Barnett actually and in fact
 >told the story on a first hand basis?

There are other witnesses besides those connected with
Barney..... The Diary is Ruth's for 1947. Period. It is not
Barney's. It usually mentioned where he worked that day. 40
times on the Plains in 1947.

 >I wondered if Barnetts diary been read through its entirety to
 >make sure there was not some other incident that happened,
 >perhaps earlier in the 40s or later on say the 50s that he might
 >have made a note about?

Yes it has been read through. It was Ruth's Diary for 1947.

<snip>

 >>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.

 >So why is Anderson apparently still considered to be a _valid_
 >witness?

There is along running battle between Kevin and myself about
Gerald. I spent a lot of time with him. He and Kevin have never
met, so far as I know. It is a long story.

Maybe when I come back from Roswell. I can dig in more.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                        Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight!

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:33:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:41:22 -0400
Subject: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight!


Hello All,

First:

Happy Canada Day to all my Canuck buddies up north! To
paraphrase Will Rogers, (or was that May West?) "I never met a
Canadian I didn't like." ;) Enjoy the holiday!

I'm posting this announcement to the List because there is a
special broadcast of SDI (Strange Days... Indeed) tonight,
(Monday 7/2) at 10:00 pm EST. The featured guest for the evening
will be Dr. John Mack.

It's been awhile since I heard Dr. Mack speak in public.
(Roswell 50th anniversary was the last time for me.) I look
forward to this evening's interview. I'm certain the program
will be both interesting, and informative.

After Dr. Mack's interview, Errol Bruce-Knapp and co-host Scott
Robbins along with regular contributors to SDI Victor Vigianni,
Greg Sandow and myself will participate in a panel discussion.

You can plug directly into the broadcast - thru' Windows Media
Player - by going to:

http://www.cfrb.com/cfrb.asx

I hope you all get a chance to listen in. It should prove to be
an interesting, entertaining, and information filled couple of
hours. Time well spent.

Tune in, you be the judge.  ;)


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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

              Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble -

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:40:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:43:01 -0400
Subject: Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble -


 >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 04:19:20 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble

 >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.

I agree. Haven't looked into it in detail, but I've read Budd's
book and Debbie Jordan's book, and what John says is true.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:44:02 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:44:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow


 >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:36:25 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >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.

Skeptics have criticized Nancy's crop circle studies because she
didn't use a double-blind approach. She says there are
differences between ordinary plants and plants taken from
circles, but allegedly she doesn't let neutral investigators
note the differences, without knowing which plants were which.
I'm sorry I didn't ask her about this when I had a chance to
speak to her in person.

Might be good to make sure she uses a double-blind approach
before asking her to get involved.

Do I remember rightly that Nick didn't find the anomalies that
Levengood did? (In dust samples, I mean.)

 >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! :)


Likewise! And thanks for the warm words.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                            CCCRN News: 07-02-01

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:49:26 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:47:00 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: 07-02-01


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

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

July 2, 2001

_____________________________


A few quick updates here...


MYCITYRADIO INTERNET RADIO INTERVIEW

Discussion and updates on the current Canadian and worldwide
crop circles with CCCRN founder and director Paul Anderson.

'The Joe Show'
MYCityRadio
Tuesday, July 3, 2001
Live, 10:30 pm - 11:30 pm PT

Internet only broadcast (both audio and video streams available).

http://www.mycityradio.com


NEXT STUDY GROUP

A late reminder for those in or near the Vancouver area:

Join CCCRN for the next 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.

'The Circles of 2001'
Starry Dynamo Cafe, 4342 Main Street, Vancouver, BC
Wednesday, July 4, 2001
9:00 pm - 11:00 pm
Free admission
Hosted by CCCRN
For  further information:
Tel: 604.731.8522
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada


NEW RESEARCH ASSISTANTS

CCCRN is also pleased to welcome two more field research
assistants this week, Lyle Ford in Calgary, Alberta, a retired
surveyor with his own Cessna plane who has offered assistance
with aerial photography (our third pilot!) in
Alberta/Saskatchewan and Susan Lehnert, daughter of the farmer
who found the recent rings at Biggar, Saskatchewan.


NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

The Leader-Post newspaper (Regina, Saskatchewan) ran an article
on CCCRN and the Canadian crop circles in the June 26 edition
('Sask. a Good Place for Crop Circles'). Thanks to reporter
Sylvia MacBean for her assistance.


ALBERTA 'CRATER' FORMATION

There is also an interesting new report from Etzikom, Alberta
(east of Lethbridge and southeast of Calgary) from a few days
ago regarding an unusual shallow 'crater' found by a farmer in
his field which is described as being nearly perfectly round
with three 'indentations' or holes inside it and a raised
surrounding rim/ring (landing trace?). Other circumstances make
this a rather interesting case. A report from the Univesrity of
Lethbridge is being forwarded tomorrow. Further details soon.


____________________________


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:
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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                               Raelian Cloning

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:24:46 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:50:55 -0400
Subject: Raelian Cloning


List:

A doctor with the Raelian Cult has agreed, for the time being,
not to clone a human being in the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/02/national/02CLON.html


Clear skies,

Bob Young








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

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 2 Jul 2001 12:47:09 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:55:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 15:22:26 -0000
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Hall

 >>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

 >>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.

<snip>

 >Dear Grant,

 >Marcia Smith's UFO papers are in my library, and I'm sure in the
 >libraries of a lot of UFologists. They are not very thorough and
 >even contain a lot of obvious errors. They contain zero original
 >material.

Sheehan did not claim, as I recall, that they were accurate or
original. He seemed to claim someone requested a report from
CRS. The evidence seems to be that the CRS has produced UFO and
SETI reports.

 >CRS consists basically of librarians and researchers
 >with some scientific and technical consultants, and they do
 >mostly what amounts to literature reviews for Congress (not for
 >the White House directly). They do not do independent scientific
 >research per se.

Again, Sheehan's story seems consistant. He states the report
was prepared for the House Committee on Science and Technology -
not the White House. That supposedly is how Bush told Carter to
do it. (A quick check of Olin Earl Teague shows him sitting on
the 1968 Committee On Science And Astronautics UFO Hearings)

Smith contacts Sheehan and a bunch of others for information. She
then writes it up for the requester.

 >The bibliography about UFOs and ET life was done as part of the
 >University of Colorado UFO study, and that's all it is--a
 >bibliography.

The bibliography is only one of the reports. No matter how
insignificant it was a report requested by someone. The 1976
report on UFOs entitled "The UFO Enigma" ( revised and updated
by George D. Havas in 1983) was not just a bibliography.

 >What do we have besides Sheehan's apparent hearsay recollections
 >to support any of this story about Bush and the CIA? Sheehan
 >seems not to have understood much of what was going on. Carter
 >also asked NASA to investigate UFOs and that was turned down.

Carter's Press Secretary contacted the FBI. Stansfield Turner at
the CIA said he looked into the UFO question. Bill Pitts claimed
he was contacted by Carter's Office of Science and Technology
Policy. There are claims from many quarters that Carter, or one
of his people, was requesting info.

Consequently, the idea that Carter would request a study thro
the House Committee on Science and Technology is totally
consistant with the facts we have on hand.

 >We need better historical research than Sheehan's word.

I agree. Smith is still employed at CRS. You live there. Go down
and interview her, or provide me her phone number so I can call
her.

 >His own description of buildings and events in Washington in
 >regard to the Archives were not credible at all.

After being there I don't quite understand. He said it was
across from the Library of Congress which it is. He said he was
in the basement. So was I. There is a basement. He said it was
built at the time of the Carter administration, and it was.

Grant

-----

We just moved in and violated all the rules. We didn't have the
procedures. They (Congress) knew the bills would be paid, and if
one were asked to do something by Schiever's group, a company
say, they knew they were going to get paid and everything was
alright. They went ahead and did the job.

Q. The statutes weren't actually changed then--

A. No, no --

Q. Just ignored?

A. That's right. That's right. Yes, we accomplished a great
deal, I'll tell you.

General Nathan Twining speaking about the development of the
ICBM 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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

              Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble -

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:24:02 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 16:42:00 -0400
Subject: Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble -


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble
 >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:40:32 -0400

 >>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 04:19:20 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble

 >>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.

 >I agree. Haven't looked into it in detail, but I've read Budd's
 >book and Debbie Jordan's book, and what John says is true.

 >Greg Sandow

I second what Greg says here. It seems like a strong case to me.
But then there are a lot of strong cases and highly articulate
witnesses; I have had the good fortune to work with some and to
meet others, which is why I don't hesitate to say that
abductions are (a) no joke, and (b) not glibly explainable in
terms of pop psychology, which is about as far as the
skeptibunkers ever get.

I witnessed Klass questioning a panel of abductees in a public
setting. Now there's a joke!


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 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                          Re: Barney Barnett - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:30:23 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 16:43:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Hall


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:33:52 -0300

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 18:29:54 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>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

 >>So why is Anderson apparently still considered to be a _valid_
 >>witness?

 >There is along running battle between Kevin and myself about
 >Gerald. I spent a lot of time with him. He and Kevin have never
 >met, so far as I know. It is a long story.

 >Maybe when I come back from Roswell. I can dig in more.

 >Stan Friedman

Stan,

I respect your overall contributions to Ufology, but your
continued defense of Gerald Anderson is beginning to make you
look silly.

Since when does any rational person start apologizing for liars,
hoaxers, and forgers? If you do that, by what double standard
can you discount Adamski, Greer, Corso, etc., etc.?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 3

                  'Branton' - Another Researcher Sidelined

From: 'Atlantis'
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:08:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:39:15 -0400
Subject: 'Branton' - Another Researcher Sidelined


[Poster known to Moderator --ebk]

Errol

I thought this update on Branton may interest you.


----- Original Message -----

From: Rayelan <rayelan@mindspring.com
To: <RuMills@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 5:26 PM
Subject: [RMNEWS] BRANTON -- ANOTHER RESEARCHER HAS BEEN SIDELINED


 From Rayelan, Publisher, Rumor Mill News

Five weeks ago, a fellow researcher was wheeling his bike across
a pedestrian lane, when a pickup (4X 4) came around the corner,
rather fast, and hit him. The accident was very suspicious. He
has been in the hospital for five weeks.

I am enclosing an update on his condition. While he is alive, it
is doubtful if he will be able to resume the work he has done.
He really needs a miracle!

I have also included the web addresses for two of his webpages.
If there is anyone who has the time to archive his work, I think
it would be a good idea. Who knows what will happen to it if
someone doesn't take charge of it and make sure it stays around.

-----

 From the Rumor Mill News Forum

Update On Branton - He's Alive

Posted By: RMNEWS
Date: Monday, 2 July 2001, 4:01 p.m.


Update On Branton
 From Carole Fox

I spoke with Branton's mother this morning and she gave me a
report on his condition. It has now been five weeks since his
accident.

As previously reported, he was in a coma for almost a week,
during this time his jaw was wired shut because it had been
fractured.

He has been transferred to the rehabilitative center of the
hospital.

The jaw has healed nicely and he is now eating. physically - he
is very wobbly and is working on getting his balance in walking.

However, the left side of his brain was affected, resulting in
post-traumatic amnesia. he is in a very confused state. His
parents will ask him if he knows their address. He will repeat
an address they had thirty years ago.

He does seems to be able to read, though.

The doctors say with a condition such as this, recovery is
usually rapid - right after the fact. This has not been the case
in this instance.

The prognosis at this point is uncertain as to regaining the
intellectual capacity he once possessed.

So, it seems he is in this situation for the long haul, with no
guarantees as to returning to his original faculties. To this
day, medical science does not know precisely where memory is
located in the brain.

Branton did get a lot of cards and letters, which his parents
read to him.

Some person sent him a book from Mysteries.Com - 'Children Of
The Matrix'. His parents are aware of some of his writings,
however, i think this upsets them.

Because they are Mormons they do believe in 'other worlds', but
the reptilian thing completely befuddles them. So probably best
not to mention anything concerning that.

In conclusion: For those of you who have wondered if he could
carry on a conversation or answer his e-mail... think it will be
a very long time - if at all.

Branton, his parents and immediate family need all the love and
prayers you can send their way.


Carole Fox
Denver, Colorado

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

Who Is Branton?

Posted By: RMNEWS
Date: Monday, 2 July 2001, 4:11 p.m.


Here are two of Branton's webpages. If someone has the time, these
webpages need to be copied and archived before they are lost.

Is there anyone who can take on this task?

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

http://www.eagle-net.org/omega/

THE OMEGA FILE:

[Greys, Nazis, Underground Bases, and the New World Order]

Please download and study this document and distribute as widely
as possible, especially to any 'Abductees' whom you may know.]


Index
Introduction

Chapter  1: The Beginning
Chapter  2: Nazi Bases in Antarctica
Chapter  3: Nazi History Part 1
Chapter  4: Nazi History Part 2
Chapter  5: David Emory's Talk radio
Chapter  6: How the US lost WWII
Chapter  7: My 10- year investigation...
Chapter  8: The Covert War
Chapter  9: The Origin of the Group!
Chapter 10: Current Organization & Goals for the NWO
Chapter 11: The Group's Operations Since WW II
Chapter 12: The Group's Funding
Chapter 13: Destruction of the American Society
Chapter 14: The Coming Chaos
Chapter 15: Mind Control Techniques
Chapter 16: U.S. Military Officers Shackled by U.N. Forces
Chapter 17: Admiral Byrd and Operation High-Jump
Chapter 18: Hitler Escaped !
Chapter 19: Polar Defenses
Chapter 20: Rudolph Hess and Secret German Space Base
Chapter 21: German Submarines in the South Atlantic
Chapter 22: Rand Corporation
Chapter 23: German Flying Discs
Chapter 24: Falkland Islands War
Chapter 25: German Economic "Miracle"
Chapter 26: Sam Russell's "Open Mind Forum" Program
Chapter 27: Civil War About to Break Out
Chapter 28: Mind Control Projects Out of Atlantic
Chapter 29: Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!
Chapter 30: Earth Island Journal, Fall 94: ARCO
Chapter 31: Testimony of Charles Hamel
Chapter 32: War of the caverns
Chapter 33: The United Nations in the United States
Chapter 34: The Federal Emergency Agency
Chapter 35: The Bavarian Illuminati
Chapter 36: The Final Invasion of the United States?
Chapter 37: Countdown to the 1997 Northern Showdown
Chapter 38: Conclusion and Philidelphia Phase III
Prologue
Scriptural References



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

The DULCE Book
By BRANTON

Index
Foreward
Introduction

Chapter  1: The Octopus, Black Projects And The Dulce Facility
Chapter  2: High Strangeness On The Archuleta Plateau
Chapter  3: Dulce New Mexico And A Cosmic Conspiracy?
Chapter  4: Dulce New Mexico & The Nazi Connection
Chapter  5: Report From A Japanese Television Crew
Chapter  6: 'Cosmic Top Secrets' And The Dulce Base
Chapter  7: A Dulce Vanguard At Deep Springs?
Chapter  8: An Alien Fifth Column On Earth?
Chapter  9: Technological Terrorism & The Dulce Base
Chapter 10: The Deep Dark Secret At Dulce
Chapter 11: A Dulce Base Security Officer Speaks Out
Chapter 12: Operation Retaliation: One Man Against An Empire
Chapter 13: Dulce New Mexico & The Draconian Connection
Chapter 14: Raging Battles Beneath The Earth
Chapter 15: Dulce: An Ancient Terminal To Inner & Outer Space?
Chapter 16: Dulce New Mexico & The Ashtar Connection
Chapter 17: The Black Budget And The Underground Empire
Chapter 18: Dulce & The Military-Industrial Establishment
Chapter 19: Who Controls The Draconian Collective?
Chapter 20: Special Forces: Defenders Of Planet Earth?
Chapter 21: Probing Deeper Into The Dulce 'Enigma'
Chapter 22: Mystery-Maverick Jim Mccampbell Takes On The Dulce
Chapter 23: Inside Intelligence On The Dulce Base
Chapter 24: The Dulce Network -- North Sector?
Chapter 25: Danger Down Under: The Christa Tilton Story
Chapter 26: The Dulce Caverns And Pueblo Mythology
Chapter 27: Dulce And The Secret Files Of A U.S. Intelligence Worker
Chapter 28: "The Organization" -- Inside The Collaboration
Chapter 29: "They Live": Chameleons In Our Midst!?
Chapter 30: Revelations From The Leading Edge
Chapter 31: Confessions Of An Fbi "X-File" Agent
Chapter 32: Revelations Of An Mj-12 Special Studies Group Agent
Chapter 33: Phil Schneider Vs. The New World Order
Chapter 34: A Closing Message To The People Of Earth

http://www.eagle-net.org/dulce/

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

<snip>

  RMNews, The Uncensored National Rumor
  http://www.rumormillnews.com
  THE ONLY RUMOR YOU CAN TRUST

  RUMOR MILL NEWS AGENCY
  P.O. BOX 1784
  APTOS, CA 95001
  TEL 831 462 3949
  FAX 831 462 2545









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

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 21:12:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:50:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall


 >Date: 2 Jul 2001 12:47:09 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 15:22:26 -0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Hall

 >>>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

 >>>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.

Dick Hall said:

 >>Marcia Smith's UFO papers are in my library, and I'm sure in the
 >>libraries of a lot of UFologists. They are not very thorough and
 >>even contain a lot of obvious errors. They contain zero original
 >>material.

 >Sheehan did not claim, as I recall, that they were accurate or
 >original. He seemed to claim someone requested a report from
 >CRS. The evidence seems to be that the CRS has produced UFO and
 >SETI reports.

 >>CRS consists basically of librarians and researchers
 >>with some scientific and technical consultants, and they do
 >>mostly what amounts to literature reviews for Congress (not for
 >>the White House directly). They do not do independent scientific
 >>research per se.

 >Again, Sheehan's story seems consistant. He states the report
 >was prepared for the House Committee on Science and Technology -
 >not the White House. That supposedly is how Bush told Carter to
 >do it. (A quick check of Olin Earl Teague shows him sitting on
 >the 1968 Committee On Science And Astronautics UFO Hearings)

 >Smith contacts Sheehan and a bunch of others for information. She
 >then writes it up for the requester.

 >>The bibliography about UFOs and ET life was done as part of the
 >>University of Colorado UFO study, and that's all it is--a
 >>bibliography.

 >The bibliography is only one of the reports. No matter how
 >insignificant it was a report requested by someone. The 1976
 >report on UFOs entitled "The UFO Enigma" ( revised and updated
 >by George D. Havas in 1983) was not just a bibliography.

 >>What do we have besides Sheehan's apparent hearsay recollections
 >>to support any of this story about Bush and the CIA? Sheehan
 >>seems not to have understood much of what was going on. Carter
 >>also asked NASA to investigate UFOs and that was turned down.

 >Carter's Press Secretary contacted the FBI. Stansfield Turner at
 >the CIA said he looked into the UFO question. Bill Pitts claimed
 >he was contacted by Carter's Office of Science and Technology
 >Policy. There are claims from many quarters that Carter, or one
 >of his people, was requesting info.

 >Consequently, the idea that Carter would request a study thro
 >the House Committee on Science and Technology is totally
 >consistant with the facts we have on hand.

 >>We need better historical research than Sheehan's word.

 >I agree. Smith is still employed at CRS. You live there. Go down
 >and interview her, or provide me her phone number so I can call
 >her.

 >>His own description of buildings and events in Washington in
 >>regard to the Archives were not credible at all.

 >After being there I don't quite understand. He said it was
 >across from the Library of Congress which it is. He said he was
 >in the basement. So was I. There is a basement. He said it was
 >built at the time of the Carter administration, and it was.


Grant,

Your posts (and Sheehan's utterances before them) contain many
misconceptions about Washington, D.C., in general and
Congressional Research Service (CRS) in particular. Apparently I
need to back up and make it clear why I say this. You are
perpetuating a mythology about President Carter, UFOs, and CRS.

First of all you can look at the CRS web site
(www.loc.gov/crsinfo) and see a mission statement, history, and
contact addresses. Then you need to understand that all of the
CRS UFO and ET related publications are open public information,
including The UFO Enigma both versions of which I have. There is
nothing mysterious or special about them at all. In fact, they
are rather superficial.

CRS does research purely for Members of Congress or
Congressional committees (as the name suggests). Since UFOs tend
not to be taken seriously in Congress or in the Federal
Government, requests for a study or analysis by a committee or a
Congressional office tend to be superficial.

Any of the hundreds of Members of Congress (some of whom at any
given time in history obviously may be of any conceivable
intellectual status) can request a "study" and CRS is duty-bound
to comply. Sometimes CRS goes through the motions (just as
another Congressional agency the General Accounting Office
does).

By the way, as an aside, during my professional employment at
Congressional Information Service (private company) I used to
abstract CRS and GAO reports and am quite familiar with them. On
many other more "acceptable" topics both agencies do a very fine
job. Also, I was one of those interviewed by Lynn Catoe for the
Library of Congress UFO-ET bibliography project via the
University of Colorado UFO Project contract.

Clearly, Jimmy Carter made an effort after being elected to try
to do something about UFOs, but basically met resistance (or
bureaucratic incompetence or indifference) on every front. He
reached out to various agencies. Marcia Smith logically was
approached through a committee. So what? You seem to be reading
something into this beyond its utter routineness.

Sheehan gives the impression of not understanding what was going
on, and reading into the approach to him something that was not
there. Sheehan described armed guards and secret depositories at
the National Archives for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
In those years I spent a lot of time at the National Archives
and carried a researcher card.

Sheehan is "consistent?" So what? The only thing I have observed
so far is how consistently mistaken you and he are about CRS,
UFOs, and Jimmy Carter.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 3

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 2 Jul 2001 14:58:01 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:02:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:54:10 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks

 >>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

 >Grant,

 >Marcia Smith talked to lots of people about UFOs back in the
 >mid-70's, including me and I'm quoted in her 1976 report. Can
 >Sheehan _document_ any of this?

Good question. I will ask him. He is not home till July 5th. Stay
tuned.

 >Where are the 1,000 pages from Clinton's S&T Office? Who has
 >those?

I have them. File an FOIA for my OSTP - FOIA of January 2001,
(it may now be at the National Archives) that involve 991 pages.
I do not have the FOIA number here now. I can provide scans of
the three page list of documents they sent me. Just send me an
e-mail requesting it.

 >Why doesn't someone _ask_ Carter what he found out?

Easier said than done. I was going to but the talk-show I phoned
into ended before I got to ask that very question. In 1997 at
Emory he stated that he did not believe there had been a
cover-up.

<snip>

 >>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.

 >Why would someone with Vatican contacts be asked to participate
 >in a "highly classified major evaluation" of UFOs and ETI?

Participation was limited to obtaining documents. Another
question I will forward to Danny.

<snip>

 >>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.

 >This makes it seem as if UFOs were the most important subject
 >of all if it was supposedly covered in the first part of the
 >only such briefing. But in fact Carter had been briefed by DCI
 >Bush several times previously at great length in nearly all-day
 >sessions, on July 5 (not intended as a formal briefing but
 >turned out that way), July 28, Aug 12, 1976, several briefings
 >were given to running mate Walter Mondale and Carter-Mondale
 >staffers by CIA staff. This 4th Carter-Bush meeting was simply
 >the only briefing by DCI Bush given during the President-elect
 >period.

There were other CIA briefings but only to a candidate. Highly
unlikely anything significant would be revealed in those
sessions. Secondly, Sheehan's account says Carter asked in a
Presidential capacity. There was only one CIA briefing with Bush
that fit that situation, as Bush was let go as soon as Carter
took office. That situation was the President elect briefing.
The CIA released one document to me related to the briefing but
it adds nothing.

 >Why didn't Carter simply wait a few weeks and order his own DCI
 >Adm Stansfield Turner (whom I interviewed) to turn over the
 >refused UFO info?

Turner told Timothy Good he looked into the UFO situation, so
he may have asked Turner. Secondly, Bush did tell him the
correct procedure (channels) for getting the information.

 >>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 CIA website article on the Carter CIA briefings does not
 >have the word "exotic" in the quote mistakenly given above,
 >unless you have a different source, and it says it was in
 >reference to Bush's telephone call to Carter on Nov 5.

The word exotic is and the word weapons is not. We are both
wrong. The exact phrase cut and past from the CIA site is
"exotic and very closely held items relating to sources and
methods." "The most significant discussions" took place in the
first 45 minutes, and it is a logical assumption that the
closely held items were discussed away from the other officers
in the first 45 minutes. Not much of this is relevant as it is
only a guess at the timing of the Carter UFO question.

 >The CIA
 >account has a very full description of the Nov 19, 1976,
 >briefing particularly as to the 45-minute private session with
 >_both_ Carter and Mondale.

 >The CIA indicates the first nearly 15 minutes was taken up with
 >Bush wanting to discuss with Carter a "personal matter," that of
 >keeping him on as CIA Director, contrary to their agreement in
 >the phone call two weeks earlier that Bush would resign. Carter
 >wouldn't budge and Bush described him as "very cold or cool."

 >During the remaining 30+ minutes of the private session Bush
 >described the sensitive programs that he had mentioned two weeks
 >earlier in the phone call were the reason he wanted to give
 >Carter the briefing. We know from other sources that the CIA and
 >other agencies had a number of sensitive projects which were
 >exposed publicly around this time or about to be exposed -- the
 >CIA mail-opening project, domestic surveillance, Glomar Explorer
 >project to recover the Soviet nuclear sub, the tapping of the
 >Soviet underwater cable connection, etc. The CIA account states:

 >[BEGIN QUOTE FROM CIA WEBSITE] His private session with Carter
 >gave Bush the opportunity to inform the President-elect of a
 >variety of sensitive human-source and technical collection
 >programs.

<snip>

 >Bush was obviously relieved when the smaller session was
 >finished and he and Carter joined the larger group for the
 >substantive briefings. The DCI recorded that Carter, in the
 >larger session that followed, "was very attentive, listening
 >intently and showing much more warmth in the bigger meeting than
 >in the smaller..... He called the briefers by their first names.
 >Actually, he referred to me a little more in this briefing than
 >he did in the earlier ones where I had the distinct feeling he
 >was somewhat uncomfortable with my being there." [END QUOTE FROM
 >CIA WEBSITE]

 >See: http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/briefing/cia-8.htm

Are you saying by this that _all_ "exotic and closely held"
items were completely and openly exposed in this CIA recounting?

 >What evidence is there that this 45-minute segment had anything
 >to do with UFOs?

None. It is my logical guess at when the UFO question mentioned
by Sheehan was asked. If the CIA would release the text of the
briefing we would know for sure. I requested everything in the
footnotes and got one document which said nothing. Only the CIA
and Carter know for sure, and neither seems to be talking.

 >>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.

 >Again, why not wait until he had his own DCI heading CIA? Carter
 >made it clear in this meeting that Bush was out as CIA Director.
 >Why would he have to follow Bush's suggestion for getting around
 >Bush's own refusal to provide info? Even Bush knew he was on his
 >way out so how could he enforce his own refusal to cooperate
 >with the soon-to-be President of the United States?

Bush was simply informing Carter of the channels needed to
obtain the information. We could just as well ask "Why didn't
Carter just order a plane and fly out to Area-51 and kick down
the doors? or execute anyone who refused to give him what he
asked for? Because, even as President channels are followed.

Secondly, there are many indications that President Carter
made many other attempts to get UFO information from other
agencies.

Bush gave his evaluation about how to get the information, just
the _same_ way Melvin Laird advised the Clinton administration
how to get at the classified UFO information. Same shit,
different day.

 >>" 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."

 >This makes it sound like a delicate political situation and that
 >Carter was a weakling who needed to mollify everyone to hold
 >onto his electoral mandate. But Carter had won by a landslide
 >and had the electoral mandate to do whatever he wanted. Maybe
 >this depiction would work better in the 1980 time frame when
 >Carter had literally overworked himself to the point of
 >exhaustion and watched as the country and the world come apart
 >at the seams, as he was shocked at the Soviet invasion of
 >Afghanistan, the hostage crisis at our embassy in Tehran, the
 >"misery index" at home, etc.

Wrong. A review of the Carter papers showed that he was backing
off on the openness of classified material only two days after
being elected in response to a letter he had received from a
group of congressmen. (non UFO related)

Carter realized early on that you couldn't just make a list of
150 things we are going to do and check them off as the days go
along.

Carter like Clinton realized that he had brought his own people
into the White House from the South (referred to as bare-footed
people who ate with their hands). He had run against the
Washington insiders. Once he and Clinton got there, they
realized who had the power - the Washington insiders.

 >The CIA was set up in order to coordinate intelligence from all
 >different parts of the government and supply it to the President
 >and his top policymakers. So why didn't Carter wait till he had
 >his own man at CIA? Isn't that what every President does, get
 >his own men in positions of authority throughout the government,
 >men he can trust, who can report back to him? The CIA had gotten
 >used to having DCI's not be replaced by incoming new
 >administrations but Ike did it in 1953, and since Carter there
 >has been a large turnover in DCI's. Bush himself told Carter at
 >the private briefing that on reflection he would agree that the
 >President should have his "own man" at CIA in whom he could have
 >confidence.

Carter told Stanton Friedman that he hired Turner because he
could trust him. Turner, in turn, got only what the people below
him gave him. Carter fired hundreds of CIA people once he took
over. He had campaigned against the abuses at the CIA while
running for president. How much cooperation do you think Turner
got?

 >>"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.
 >
 >By the time Carter became President and had the power to even
 >have "a major confrontation" Bush was out of the CIA, his last
 >day was Jan 20, 1977, when Carter was sworn in. Carter appointed
 >Turner as DCI on Feb 8 and he took office at the CIA on Mar 9,
 >1977. Why couldn't Carter simply tell Turner to get the UFO info
 >he wanted? Turner was installed at CIA to shake things up
 >anyway.

He shook things up alright. They cleaned house. Four years later
with no cooperation from the bureaucracy, he went down as a one
term president who achieved very little.

Why didn't Turner get the info? Same reason Woolsey didn't. The
people who knew wouldn't tell him. Woolsey was cut off not only
from the UFO information but from the President. He only met
twice in person with the President during his term as DCI. So
much for the power of the DCI. In a recent interview at the
Council on Foreign Relations with three other DCIs, Woolsey
recounted the joke about how little power he had. Some guy had
crashed a plane on the White House lawn. At the CIA the joke was
going around that "that was Woolsey trying to get a meeting with
the President."

 ><snip>

 >>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.

 ><snip>

 >What do these 1,000 pages consist of, what do they say?

A short version. Laurance Rockefeller begins his efforts to get
the Clinton White House to declassify the classified UFO records
believed by many to exist. He hired Melvin Laird who advises him
the way to do it is thro Gibbons at the Office for Science and
Technology Policy.

In 93 and 94 Rockefeller and Scott Jones meet with Gibbons and
some of his staffers. Farley's "Matrix of UFO Beliefs" and
Maccabee's briefing are discussed. In 1994 Gibbons suggests that
instead of all UFO material being pushed for perhaps one case
should be chosen. Rockefeller says - great- we choose the
Roswell case.

The rest of the documents are the efforts to get the Roswell
material from the USAF, discussion about the many drafts of a
letter Rockefeller is preparing for Clinton.

The Best Available Evidence and some documents surrounding it are
included.

It's all very interesting reading.


Grant


"Whatever statement you saw concerning President Carter's view
on UFOs was not exactly what he said. He had seen something that
he thought was unexplainable that possibly might have been a UFO
and he will certainly disclose and describe any unusual
phenomena he might see. He is committed to the fullest possible
openness in government and would support full disclosure of
material that was not defense sensitive that might relate to
UFOs. He did not, however, pledge to "make every piece of
information concerning the UFOs available to the public." There
might be some aspects of some sightings that would have defense
implications that possibly should be safe guarded against
immediate and full disclosure."

                -- Walter Wurfel, Carter Deputy Press Secretary
                                              February 28, 1977








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

              Re: Soundtrack From The Movie 'Roswell'? - Davids

From: Paul Davids <Roswellufo@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:34:36 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:08:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Soundtrack From The Movie 'Roswell'? - Davids


 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Soundtrack From The Movie 'Roswell'?
 >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 04:54:19 -0500 (CDT)
 >From: Giuliano 'Jimmy' Marinkovic <c9a4ag@clarc.org>

 >Hello List,

 >Does anyone know where I could get soundtrack from the movie
 >'Roswell'. Yes, I am thinking about the famous TV movie
 >'Roswell', directed by Jeremy Kagan and produced by Paul Davids.

 >The composer was Elliot Goldenthall (Interview with the Vampire,
 >Batman Forever, etc).


Dear Jimmy,

Tough question.

We never released an album of the 'Roswell' music score.

Apart from getting the music off the videotape itself, you could
try to track down Elliot over the net, or contact Jeremy Kagan
by writing him at 2501 Ocean Front Walk Apt D, Venice, CA 90291,
since he knows Elliot. Or you could contact SHOWTIME in NY and
try to find someone in the licensing division.

If your radio program is in Croatia, although I don't have
authority to give permission for its radio use, speaking off the
record, I would be quite surprised if anyone ever minded that
kind of use, particularly if you give credit to the film and
discuss its importance to you.


Best wishes,

Paul Davids
Producer - 'Roswell'








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

              Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 2 Jul 2001 18:11:20 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:12:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:57:17 EDT
 >Subject: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Please check out the following interesting UPI article titled
 >'Army Exploring Nanotechnology And Robotics' over on the
 >Sightings Web site:

 >http://sightings.com/general11/nan.htm

 >It describes how the Army now realizes the tremendous potential
 >of the emerging field of nanotechnology to develop "super"
 >materials. Nanotechnology is the science of assembling materials
 >literally on an atom by atom basis to create perfect materials.
 >These materials, according to computer modeling, could be made
 >much stronger, harder, and more heat resistant than anything we
 >can manufacture today. The materials could have active
 >properties, like living tissue, and also be highly integrated.
 >All electronics could be built right in.

 >In the excerpt below, notice how the article talks about
 >creating body armor that theoretically could be 2 or even 3
 >orders of magnitude lighter in weight than present armor.
 >Something as thin as a piece of paper could stop a .45 caliber
 >bullet. Furthermore, it could have electronics and power supply
 >integrated right into the armor.

 >------------
 >Q. How much is the Army going to use nanotechnology, say,
 >  over the next decade?

 >A. The university laboratories have been making pretty good
 >  progress in nanoscience. And technology follows science.
 >  Until you understand the science you can't move into
 >  technology efforts. You have to have equipment to allow for
 >  the fabrication of materials and devices on the nanoscale. So
 >  we have to have a good characterization before we are ready
 >  to move into the fabrication and application state. We'll see
 >  progress in the field of materials, new materials and our new
 >  Institute For Soldier Nanotechnology will focus on soldiers'
 >  uniforms.

 >  Our first step is to develop a uniform, using nanoscale
 >  materials to integrate electronics, computer devices and
 >  power supply. And for ballistic protection. For example,
 >  today if you want to stop a .45 caliber bullet you need about
 >  10 to 20 pounds per square foot. Where we are headed with
 >  nanoscience and technology is the ability to stop a bullet
 >  with as much as two or three orders of magnitude less in
 >  pounds, something as thin and light as a piece of paper
 >  stopping a .45 caliber bullet. That's the potential. If we
 >  could drop this under one pound per square foot we've made
 >  dramatic progress. So, our mark on the wall is more than a
 >  factor of 10 drop in that ballistic protection. Also, we hope
 >  to get technologies into the marketplace so volumes will grow
 >  and prices will drop.

 >---------------------

 >Why do I bring this up on a UFO List? When I first read the
 >testimony about the unusual properties of the Roswell debris, I
 >was immediately fascinated, a fascination that continues to this
 >day. I was struck by the consistent descriptions of the physical
 >properties from people who apparently didn't even know one
 >another. The materials were described as extremely lightweight,
 >yet exceptionally hard and exceptionally tough. Knifes couldn't
 >mark this material or cut it. Some thin metal material couldn't
 >be bent, no matter how much pressure was applied. Sledgehammers
 >had no effect. It was unaffected by flame. Some thin metal
 >material had active properties or "memory." It could be wadded
 >up and yet unfold to its original shape without creasing. In one
 >account, a witness was told a rigid, thin metal material
 >supposedly from the interior, also glowed when energized with
 >electricity.

<snip>

Like Nitonol - the shape-memory alloy. I think you are on the
right track. The smooth seamless surface of a saucer, as
described by witnesses, may be the appearance of a nanotech
application. Perhaps energizing the shell of the craft in a
particular mode may cause it to change its shape. Biomorphic
UFOs have been observed. I saw one just a few short years ago
miles above the Hollywood Bowl!

Witnesses have told me that sliding their hand over the outside
surface of a UFO felt like gliding over a film of soap. Another
clue. Distilling all the clues from witness data alone can lead
to attempts at reverse engineering in my opinion.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 3

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:26:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:58:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Sparks


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:23:31 EDT
 >>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks

 >>>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>>UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>From: sqquishy@altavista.com
 >>>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel


 >>Grant,

 >>Marcia Smith talked to lots of people about UFOs back in the
 >>mid-70's, including me and I'm quoted in her 1976 report. Can
 >>Sheehan _document_ any of this?

 >Good question. I will ask him. He is not home till July 5th. Stay
 >tuned.

Hi Grant,

Thanks! Any kind of documentation would help, especially
anything such as a desk calendar or note or some record of when
he might have been contacted would help to nail down the date
better. Best of all if he has notes or a record of the
Bush-Carter contact as it was relayed to him closest in time to
1976/7 to minimize distortion or contamination of memories in
the passage of time.

 >>Where are the 1,000 pages from Clinton's S&T Office? Who has
 >>those?

 >I have them. File an FOIA for my OSTP - FOIA of January 2001,
 >( it may now be at the National Archives) that involve 991
 >pages. I do not have the FOIA number here now. I can provide
 >scans of the three page list of documents they sent me. Just send
 >me an e-mail requesting it.

I've now heard there are an additional 200-300 pages on top of
the 991.

Yes please email me the list off line, if you would.

 >>Why doesn't someone _ask_ Carter what he found out?

 >Easier said than done. I was going to but the talk-show I
 >phoned into ended before I got to ask that very question.
 >In 1997 at Emory he stated that he did not believe there
 >had been a cover-up.

Well that comment at Emory seems to contradict the idea that DCI
Bush refused to give him UFO information back in late 1976/early
1977, since such a refusal is in effect a coverup.

Also what did Stan Friedman find out from Carter? (You mention
that later on.) That would again seem to be highly pertinent to
evaluating the Sheehan story

 ><snip>

 >>>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.

 >>Why would someone with Vatican contacts be asked to participate
 >>in a "highly classified major evaluation" of UFOs and ETI?

 >Participation was limited to obtaining documents. Another question
 >I will forward to Danny.

Let me add that it just seems strange because one thinks of a
"highly classified major evaluation" of UFO's and ETI as
something scientific and technical whereas with the Vatican one
thinks of "religious." Yes it is true that religious
implications must be considered _if_ ETI is real but it seems
Carter was trying to get to that point first, i.e., establish
that ETI is real by finding out what the US Govt knew about the
nature or origin of UFO's. Religious issues would be a diversion
from that goal of establishing UFO ETI reality especially if
Carter was already having trouble getting info out of the
government he now headed or was about to head.

 ><snip>

 >>>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.

 >>This makes it seem as if UFOs were the most important subject
 >>of all if it was supposedly covered in the first part of the
 >>only such briefing. But in fact Carter had been briefed by DCI
 >>Bush several times previously at great length in nearly all-day
 >>sessions, on July 5 (not intended as a formal briefing but
 >>turned out that way), July 28, Aug 12, 1976, several briefings
 >>were given to running mate Walter Mondale and Carter-Mondale
 >>staffers by CIA staff. This 4th Carter-Bush meeting was simply
 >>the only briefing by DCI Bush given during the President-elect
 >>period.

 >There were other CIA briefings but only to a candidate. Highly unlikely
 >anything significant would be revealed in those sessions. Secondly,
 >Sheehan's account says Carter asked in a Presidential capacity. There
 >was only one CIA briefing with Bush that fit that situation, as Bush
 >was let go as soon as Carter took office. That situation was the
 >President elect briefing. The CIA released one document to me
 >related to the briefing but it adds nothing.

This is not quite correct. DCI Bush met with Carter again for
the 5th time on Dec 9, 1976, for a 20-minute briefing in the
middle of a larger briefing by CIA staff. So there were two Bush
briefings of Carter while he was President-elect, not one.

 >>Why didn't Carter simply wait a few weeks and order his own DCI
 >>Adm Stansfield Turner (whom I interviewed) to turn over the
 >>refused UFO info?

 >Turner told Timothy Good he looked into the UFO situation, so
 >he may have asked Turner. Secondly, Bush did tell him the
 >correct procedure (channels) for getting the information.

It makes better sense that Carter might have asked _both_ DCI
Bush then DCI Turner. But it doesn't make sense that an almost
embarrassing request outside the Executive Branch to the
Congressional Research Service can at all be considered "the
correct procedure" for "getting the information." Carter as
President headed the Executive Branch. It is certainly unusual
if not slightly improper for Carter to request Executive Branch
info on UFO's from the Legislative Branch instead of getting it
from his branch.

And the choice of the CRS is odd. CRS researches legislative
issues. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA),
now abolished, had the responsibility for in-depth scientific
studies. If Carter wanted to put some teeth into the inquiry
through the Legislative Branch he should have instigated a GAO
audit - something like what happened with Roswell in 1993-4. The
GAO has a huge staff of personnel with full clearances and a
track record of acting aggressively to investigate and report
abuses.

 >>>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 CIA website article on the Carter CIA briefings does not
 >>have the word "exotic" in the quote mistakenly given above,
 >>unless you have a different source, and it says it was in
 >>reference to Bush's telephone call to Carter on Nov 5.

 >The word exotic is and the word weapons is not. We are both
 >wrong. The exact phrase cut and past from the CIA site is
 >"exotic and very closely held items relating to sources and methods."

I caught my own mistake and posted the correction already, but
thanks!

But I think you're missing the point: Carter didn't ask for the
meeting which became a briefing. Bush did. Surely Bush wasn't
trying to force UFO info on Carter was he? On Nov 5, 1976, DCI
Bush phoned asking for the meeting with Carter to discuss
"exotic and very closely held items relating to sources and
methods." This phrase couldn't relate to Carter's request for
UFO data, since it was Bush's request. It is tempting to try to
see "exotic" as a euphemism for UFO's but it would indicate Bush
wanted to tell Carter about the "exotic" subject of UFO's if
that's the case. That would contradict Sheehan's story that Bush
had refused Carter's request for UFO data.

More importantly, according to the CIA account of the 45-minute
session, Bush stated that Carter surprised him by "asking no
questions during the whole session." Carter "asked for no
follow-up action or information." Bush also said he emphasized
to Carter that "if the President-elect felt he needed additional
information he could, of course, contact CIA."

Again this seems to be a total contradiction of the hypothesis
that at this 45-minute private session Bush had been asked by
Carter for UFO data and refused it, then had described a
roundabout approach to the Congressional Research Service that
dodged the CIA altogether. Bush said he told Carter in the
45-minute session to "contact CIA" for additional information.

 >"The most significant discussions" took place in the first 45
 >minutes, and it is a logical assumption that the closely held
 >items were discussed away from the other officers in the first
 >45 minutes. Not much of this is relevant as it is only a guess
 >at the timing of the Carter UFO question.

 >>The CIA
 >>account has a very full description of the Nov 19, 1976,
 >>briefing particularly as to the 45-minute private session with
 >>_both_ Carter and Mondale.

 >>The CIA indicates the first nearly 15 minutes was taken up with
 >>Bush wanting to discuss with Carter a "personal matter," that of
 >>keeping him on as CIA Director, contrary to their agreement in
 >>the phone call two weeks earlier that Bush would resign. Carter
 >>wouldn't budge and Bush described him as "very cold or cool."

 >>During the remaining 30+ minutes of the private session Bush
 >>described the sensitive programs that he had mentioned two weeks
 >>earlier in the phone call were the reason he wanted to give
 >>Carter the briefing. We know from other sources that the CIA and
 >>other agencies had a number of sensitive projects which were
 >>exposed publicly around this time or about to be exposed - the
 >>CIA mail-opening project, domestic surveillance, Glomar Explorer
 >>project to recover the Soviet nuclear sub, the tapping of the
 >>Soviet underwater cable connection, etc. The CIA account states:

 >>[BEGIN QUOTE FROM CIA WEBSITE] His private session with Carter
 >>gave Bush the opportunity to inform the President-elect of a
 >>variety of sensitive human-source and technical collection
 >>programs.

 ><snip>

 >>See: http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/briefing/cia-8.htm

 >Are you saying by this that ALL "exotic and closely held" items were
 >completely and openly exposed in this CIA recounting?

What I'm saying is that we have a fairly detailed account in
which nearly 15 minutes was taken up with the "personal matter"
of Bush's plea to be kept on as CIA Director and then the
remaining 30+ minutes were taken up with discussion of more than
12 "sensitive CIA programs and issues" which doesn't seem to
leave room for UFO's unless UFO's were one of them and Bush
briefed him on UFO's instead of refusing to brief him.

And again, Carter reportedly asked Bush "no questions" in the
session, asked for "no follow-up action or information," and
Bush told him he could contact the CIA for more information.

 >>What evidence is there that this 45-minute segment had
anything >>to do with UFOs?

 >None. It is my logical guess at when the UFO question mentioned
 >by Sheehan was asked. If the CIA would release the text of the
 >briefing we would know for sure. I requested everything in the
 >footnotes and got one document which said nothing. Only the CIA
 >and Carter know for sure, and neither seems to be talking.

The major problem of course is that the CIA account states
Carter asked "no questions" in the 45-minute session, "asked for
no follow-up action or information" and was told by Bush to
"contact CIA" if he felt he needed any information.

<snip>

 >Bush gave his evaluation about how to get the information,
 >JUST THE SAME WAY Melvin Laird advised the Clinton administration
 >how to get at the classified UFO information. Same shit, different
 >day.

Did Laird tell Clinton or science advisor Dr. Jack Gibbons to
ask the Congressional Research Service for UFO data? Seems more
likely that a well-connected and well-informed Beltway insider
such as Laird would have suggested the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA) which Gibbons had directed for 14
years immediately prior to coming to the White House, since OTA
would have been more appropriate for in-depth scientific
analysis than the CRS. Even so, if it was an issue of getting
info out of existing agencies rather than studying a technical
issue, the GAO would have been the appropriate Congressional
agency, assuming such an approach outside the Executive Branch
was needed by Clinton.

 >>>" 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."

The President could have received classified UFO info so why go
to an outside Congressional agency of relative weakness to beg
for declassification?

 >>This makes it sound like a delicate political situation and that
 >>Carter was a weakling who needed to mollify everyone to hold
 >>onto his electoral mandate. But Carter had won by a landslide

<snip>

 >>The CIA was set up in order to coordinate intelligence from all
 >>different parts of the government and supply it to the President
 >>and his top policymakers. So why didn't Carter wait till he had
 >>his own man at CIA? Isn't that what every President does, get
 >>his own men in positions of authority throughout the government,
 >>men he can trust, who can report back to him? The CIA had gotten
 >>used to having DCI's not be replaced by incoming new
 >>administrations but Ike did it in 1953, and since Carter there
 >>has been a large turnover in DCI's. Bush himself told Carter at
 >>the private briefing that on reflection he would agree that the
 >>President should have his "own man" at CIA in whom he could have
 >>confidence.

 >Carter told Stanton Friedman that he hired Turner because he
 >could trust him. Turner, in turn, got only what the people below him
 >gave him. Carter fired hundreds of CIA people once he took over.
 >He had campaigned against the abuses at the CIA while running for
 >president. How much cooperation do you think Turner got?

Well how much cooperation do you think the Congressional
Research Service got in getting CIA to declassify UFO documents
instead of the CIA Director?

Seems to me CIA Director Turner had more clout in getting info
out of his own agency than an a weak outside agency of Congress.
Only if Congress itself initiated an investigation and subpenaed
the CIA records would Congress have any comparable power to DCI
Turner. And Sheehan isn't saying that was suggested.

 >>>"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.

This makes no sense. "Major confrontation with Mr. Bush" is
avoided by simply waiting a few weeks for his successor, Adm.
Turner. It doesn't require going to a weak agency with no clout
in the Congress - again, the GAO had more clout than the CRS.
There is no mention here of Carter asking Turner for CIA info on
UFO's. It's given as an either/or situation. Either accept DCI
Bush's alleged refusal of UFO data or go the Congressional
route.

<snip>

 >Why didn't Turner get the info? Same reason Woolsey didn't. The
 >people who knew wouldn't tell him. Woolsey was cut off not only
 >from the UFO information but from the President. He only met twice
 >in person with the President during his term as DCI. So much
 >for the power of the DCI. In a recent interview at the Council on
 >Foreign Relations with three other DCIs, Woolsey recounted the
 >joke about how little power he had. Some guy had crashed a plane
 >on the White House lawn. At the CIA the joke was going around
 >that "that was Woolsey trying to get a meeting with the President."

 >><snip>

But it makes even less sense to go to a weak Congressional
research bureau for classified CIA data on UFO's than to go to
the CIA Director!

Thanks for recap of the OSTP docs which I've snipped for reasons
of length.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 3

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:23:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:00:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Sparks


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:54:07 -0300

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>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.

<snip>

 >>>>>>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,

<snip>

 >>>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.

<snip>

 >>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.

 >It is a useful thought except that FlecDanley his boss pinned
 >down the date. A cowboy and postmistress out in the Plains area
 >also did.

Did they pin down the date of an alleged saucer crash or simply
one of many Daylight Disc sightings of the Summer of 1947, a
sighting by Barnett?

There is no mention of a saucer crash in Barnett's story until
Feb 1950 when he told the Maltaises for the first time despite
knowing them for many years. The story Barnett gave them was
admittedly undated. The Feb 1950 date of the recounting is given
in The Roswell Incident. This follows a nationwide wave of
publicity given to the Scully stories which were helped along by
the TIME magazine story of Jan 9, 1950.

<snip>

 >>>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
<snip>

It all traces back to nth-handed hearsay from Barnett who was
never even interviewed before he died in 1969.








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

                    Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?

From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:20:45 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:06:55 -0400
Subject: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?


We keep hearing talk about the so-called "Son of Star Wars". In
Yorkshire (North England), Menwith Hill is being modernised and
set up to aid in the operation of Son of Star Wars, and there is
talk of killer satellites, and the United States Air Force are
testing a 747 aircraft armed with an airborne laser system.

Not long ago I heard rumours that the U.S. Department of Defence
had satellites parked out in space with their instruments
pointing not towards earth, but outwards into deep space.

In fact I did hear that an observatory in Australia had
accidently picked up one of these satellites on there monitoring
equipment. Much to the embarassment of the US DOD.

Why are these satellites there, and more importantly why are
they monitoring deep space? What are they looking for?

In the U.K. some of the underground bunkers, and command posts
which were closed down during the cold war are secretly being
re-instated. And some of the BBC Shortwave transmitter sites
that have been shut down, but they are not being dismantled.

I can accept that they no longer want to broadcast to the rest
of the world anymore due to expenditure, and like most national
broadcasters worldwide are begining to utilise satellite
broadcasting.

The thing is... why are the BBC transmitter sites not being
taken apart?

Well, there is a rumour that these sites could be taken over by
the military for the use of telecommuncations.

I remember a few years ago people saying that eventually all
aircraft communications would be via satellite, and all SSB
shortwave would cease.

That has not happened, and probably never will.

Even today the US Air Force Shortwave circuits are as busy
as they ever were. Why? Because in the event of a war a
satellite would be the first target to be destroyed, leaving the
enemy not just blind but deaf as well. So they would need a
back-up. Such as ground stations. No need to obtain planning
permission because the radio towers would allready be there,
along with the transmitter buildings. No environmentalists to
battle against.

So with all this in mind and the persistant continuation of the
Starwars programme, and now we haer that the new US Defence
Secretary wanting to start a Space Force under the command of
the US Air Force, one has to ask just who the hell is all this
being directed against?

This should be open for debate. Comments and suggestions greatly
appreciated.

I fear the future could be a worrying time, and it would be
interesting to know what is going on in other countries.


Chris Rolfe

Director of Research & Investigations
UFO Monitors
East Kent









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

                Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:02:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:09:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Balaskas


 >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:33:33 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight!

<snip>

 >It's been awhile since I heard Dr. Mack speak in public.
 >(Roswell 50th anniversary was the last time for me.) I look
 >forward to this evening's interview. I'm certain the program
 >will be both interesting, and informative.

 >After Dr. Mack's interview, Errol Bruce-Knapp and co-host Scott
 >Robbins along with regular contributors to SDI Victor Vigianni,
 >Greg Sandow and myself will participate in a panel discussion.

 >You can plug directly into the broadcast - thru' Windows Media
 >Player - by going to:

 >http://www.cfrb.com/cfrb.asx

Greetings John and everyone.

Every Saturday I look forward to my weekly fix of three hours of
news and comments about UFOs on Errol's 'Strange Days... Indeed'
radio show. Last night I listened to a special edition of 'SDI'
which featured Dr. John Mack and the above mentioned guests
including regular commentator, Dave "Furry" Furlotte (who I
suspect John Velez missed hearing since he had nothing to say
about Dave's comments that abductees should be "locked-up").

I agree with John Velez and Greg Sandow that more research and
independent investigations need to be done in the UFO abduction
phenomena since after many years, we are not much further ahead
in our understanding of what we are really dealing with. Also,
we may not be as opened minded as we think we are when trying to
come to terms with this phenomena. It was refreshing to hear a
qualified and respected individual as Dr. Mack talk about
certain things that come up in this phenomena which we choose to
overlook or find objectionable such as the religious or 'New
Age' aspects. By closing some doors before exploring what is on
the other side may prevent us from ever finding the answers in
our search for the truth.

My training in modern science and much work experience in this
field has lead me to study the UFO abduction phenomena from a
different angle. Although I have yet to find physical proof for
the reality of the UFO phenomena from my direct involvement with
many suspected UFO or E.T. artifacts, including the 'Dust Bunny'
project, it is something very much worth doing if we are to
understand even a single facet of this phenomena. Yes, UFOs do
exist and related phenomena such as abductions are very real
(both physical and psychological/spiritual) to us but unless we
can further increase our knowledge of what we are studying, we
won't be able to enlighten others or to make them appreciate the
true nature of the Universe we are a part of.


Nick Balaskas


P.S. John Velez will be getting microphotographs of all 51 dust
samples in the mail sometime after tomorrow. I would be very
curious to learn what he notices in these preliminary images.
There is one image of a dust particle that reminded me of a
crashed microflying saucer with three porthole windows. Like the
Face on Mars, maybe it was just a lighting effect, or maybe
not...

Happy 'ID4' to our fellow Americans south of the border.

P.P.S. During last night's UFO radio show, John Velez observed
how the UFO abdcution phenomena takes place at night under the
cover of darkness. This single fact made me wonder about life
that does not require energy from the Sun.

Prior to 1977 I think it is safe to say that biologists believed
all life on Earth, animal and plant, required energy from the
Sun. Since then, astrobiologists continue to study certain
plant- like tube worms found deep in our oceans that derive
their energy from chemosynthesis, not photosynthesis. The fact
that the byproduct of chemosynthesis is sulfur and not oxygen as
in photosynthesis, may be a very important clue in our
understanding of the UFO abduction phenomena. We are aware that
sulfur odours are frequently reported by abductees and in some
cases, yellow (sulphur?) stained clothing has been collected by
researchers such as Victor Vigianni and Tom Theofanous. Does
this suggest certain E.T. aliens have physiologies similar to
the "alien-like" tube worms which require no light that are
found deep in the Earth's oceans? Any comments?







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

              Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble -

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:33:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:11:51 -0400
Subject: Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble
 >Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:24:02 -0000

 >I second what Greg says here. It seems like a strong case to me.
 >But then there are a lot of strong cases and highly articulate
 >witnesses; I have had the good fortune to work with some and to
 >meet others, which is why I don't hesitate to say that
 >abductions are (a) no joke, and (b) not glibly explainable in
 >terms of pop psychology, which is about as far as the
 >skeptibunkers ever get.

I agree with Dick. There are many strong abduction cases, some of
which have gotten no publicity at all.

 >I witnessed Klass questioning a panel of abductees in a public
 >setting. Now there's a joke!

I'll never forget my conversation with him about abductions. The
highlight (paraphrased, but accurate):

PK: Abductees are little nobodies, who just want to get on TV.

GS: That amazes me. Almost all the abductees I've met don't want
to appear in public. How many abductees have you met?

PK [in a very comfortable voice, completely unaware of what he's
implying]: I've met the ones I've appeared with on TV!


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 >
   Jul > Jul 3

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:31:44 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:14:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:54:07 -0300

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>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.

 >Let us recall it was Ruth's diary _not_ Barney's.

Stan, List -

No one said that it was Barney's. And, let's recall that Alice Knight
told me about it, that I picked it up at her home and returned it to
her in person. Stan might have stood at the machine and made the
copies, but I'm the one who handed it to him to be copied.

 >>>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.

 >It was Ruth's diary.

Which still contains no hints of any extraordinary event. No
mention that Barney came home agitated, came home upset, that he
had seen anything extraordinary even if he didn't identify what
he might have seen. There's just nothing in this diary to
provide any clues.

<snip>

 >>>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

 >Not really true. His description of the woman at the grocery
 >store was immediately recognized by a woman and her mother
 >living down the road when we visited them unannounced.

I'm sorry, but this really proves nothing. No one has disputed
that Anderson was familiar with the Plains of San Agustin, or
that he visited there. Being able to describe a woman at a
grocery store proves nothing other than Anderson had been there.
It certainly produces nothing about the time frame and it does
nothing to corroborate his tale, especially in light of all the
other things that Anderson said that weren't true.

 >>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.

 >It is a useful thought except that FlecDanley his boss pinned
 >down the date. A cowboy and postmistress out in the Plains area
 >also did.

According to Bill Moore Fleck Danley pinned down the date, more
or less, to the late 1940s. He didn't actually confine it to
July 1947, and when I talked to Danley, he wasn't sure about the
dates. (To be fair, he wasn't sure about much of anything.)

<snip>

Stan wrote:

 >>>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.

I replied:

 >>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.

To which, Stan replied:

 >I was the first to locate Drake (an I met with him in Person as
 >well) and he certainly never told me that he told the 3
 >companions about what he had been told. They did talk about
 >flying saucers on the way back. Not about a crashed saucer and
 >bodies.

Except that Drake did say they talked about the crash, and when
he learned that the others in the car remembered nothing about
this, changed his story.

But, even if true, please provide the name of the cowboy. Drake
gives us the uncorroborated tale of an unidentified cowboy who
tells of the crash. No one else talked to the cowboy and no one
knows who it is. Even Drake could not identify him. And, if I
wanted to be really picky, I could point out that no one talked
to Drake until after the publication of The Roswell Incident.

I wrote:

 >>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.

Stan wrote:

 >Sorry Kevin. but Gerald was _not_ in Buskirk's class, no matter
 >how many ttimes you say he was. Larry Henning did not tell you
 >he was. I spoke with 5 members of the class, had them all look
 >at Gerald's High School yearbook picture. None recognized
 >Gerald, though they all recalled each other. Buskirk didn't say
 >Gerald was in his class either. The transcript had no entry for
 >the class.He was in the Seals. He did admit faking the phone
 >bill. I was indeed upset when I got a copy of the original bill
 >from the phone company in springfield. This was mostly in
 >response to the many strange stories you were telling about him.
 >Pproclamations don't make statements true no matter how often
 >they are repeated and no matter how well written they are.

Sorry, Stan, but he was. I didn't get the information from Larry
Henning, though he did tell me that Anderson was in Buskirk's
class. No, the information came from the Albuquerque High
School. I talked to an assistant principal there, who pulled up
the record and told me that Anderson took the anthropology class
the first semester and then transferred to French the second
semester, which is the same thing he told Dr. Buskirk. And would
tell anyone else, except Anderson threaten to sue us for making
stuff up and forging documents. (Interesting that Anderson would
suspect us of making stuff up and faking documents, don't you
think?)

So, really, it doesn't matter how many people from the class
didn't remember Anderson... the important point is that an
official at the high school confirmed that Anderson took the
class, as did Dr. Buskirk. (And should I point out that I talked
to all of them before you did and only Henning remembered
Anderson?)

And in the amazing coincidence category, we have young Gerald
Anderson seeing a flying saucer on the Plains, and appearing
there too, is Dr. Buskirk, who just happens to end up teaching
at the same high school that Anderson attends. What are the
odds? So, we really don't even have to put Anderson in the
classroom with Dr. Buskirk (which I believe we have done)
because we put them together at the same high school at the same
time. That really is enough and we don't have to deal with the
red herring of Anderson's denial that he took anthropology or
that his classmates don't remember him.

Yes, we know that Anderson's Buskirk on the Plains is the same
one as the teacher at the high school because Anderson supplied
an Identikit sketch of Dr. Buskirk that several people
recognized as the high school teacher.

The copy of the transcript that you have is not an official
document, and could have easily have been altered. We know
Anderson does this because he altered his own telephone bill. We
have also suggested that Anderson have the current principal of
the high school look at the record and then supply a letter
saying that he didn't take the class. Anderson has refused. Why?
Wouldn't he want that on the record because it was so easily
prove me wrong. Or, could it be that he knows the truth and
doesn't want to confirm it because he faked his transcript? I
mean, he tried to "get" me with the altered telephone bill, but
here is a chance to do it with a document that could have the
proper provenance, but he refuses to do it. I'm sorry but that
makes no sense to me.

Anderson, according to Kevin Dougherty at the Navy SEALS museum
in Miami, he told me that no one with the name Gerald Anderson
had ever been a Navy SEAL. In the 1960s, the SEALs units were
quite small and everyone knew everyone else. No one recalls
Gerald Anderson. Have you checked his service record? That would
certainly detail his training as a SEAL. In fact, has he
supplied any official documents to confirm his SEAL training? Of
course, once we have those documents, we'd need to verify them
because Anderson has a history of altering documents to prove
his point.

And please identify one of these strange tales that I was
telling about Anderson. I certainly didn't tell him not to talk
to you, though you said to him, "Forget Kevin Randle." I didn't
tell him that I was a writer of romances, though Stan told him
that (and as an aside some of those romance writers make big
coin. I wouldn't mind getting some of that, but I haven't, ever,
written anything that could be labeled as a romance). Also note
that I was the first to talk to Anderson and even sent Stan a
letter telling him about Anderson and what he said. I was also
very cautious, suggesting that Anderson might not be telling the
truth.


 >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.

 >I thin we definitely agree about the illegitimacy of the film...
 >and of Corso for that matter as well and on the high reliability
 >of both Jesse Marcels , etc etc.

 >>>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."

 >Sure don't remember getting anything with that very provocative title

That is known as a joke.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 3

                           Thoughts From MUFON-CES

From: Hannes la Rue"<hannes.la.rue@mufon-ces.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:42:33 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:20:33 -0400
Subject: Thoughts From MUFON-CES


The yearly statistics update from the Central European Section
of MUFON:

- - -

A few thoughts from MUFON-CES

Munich - The Society for the Scientific Investigation of
Anomalous Atmospherical and Radar Phenomena (MUFON-CES) can not
confirm a decrease in UFO reports. This was recently repeatedly
announced by the German Central Research Network of Anomalous
Sky Phenomena (CENAP) (1). However we keep on receiving about
two reports per month that just stay unidentified. We have
studied 431 UFO reports since 1974. Most objects were reported
to be saucer shaped (26 %), followed by ball shaped
objects/lights (24 %), triangular/quadrangular objects (15 %)
and unusually shaped objects (12 %). As updated statistics (2)
show we could identify 62 objects on photos and 18 objects on
film. Additional 48 reports without photos or film could be
identified. In 62.5 % of the identified cases disco laser light
shows were misinterpreted as UFOs. 303 cases (70 %) remain
unidentified. 48 previously unpublished cases (including
drawings) are now online in german language (3). Last year
(2000) we could not identify 17 UFO reports (1999:15; 1998:29;
1997:25).

The past month we received two very typical reports - typical
because the objects scared the observers. During the night from
June 8th to 9th a married couple was pursued by two milky white
shining objects in the sky, about as large as the moon. The
witnesses were scared because they felt the objects were
watching them. The oppression became even more intense as they
noticed that the objects stopped and seemingly hovered above
their house. Soon the objects became smaller and disappeared. On
May 28th a woman observed three supposedly 40 meters wide and 16
meters long triangles in about 200 meters altitude. They moved
very slowly. The objects appeared "threatening" because the
dully rumbling objects were so close.

MUFON-CES can't understand why CENAP hardly receives UFO reports
anymore. Maybe observers know that people at CENAP only explain
and don't investigate. But indeed UFO interest of the public is
very low at the moment. Books on the subject for example are
selling very badly. The agenda setting media, especially nationwide
subscription newspapers, are as sceptical and polemic as ever.
Die Welt ran a huge debunking piece on UFOs a few days ago.
Interestingly Germany's leading tabloid newspaper BILD recently
speculated if NATO had fear of UFOs after George W. Bush
mysteriously spoke of "new threats" (4).

A representative poll of the Allensbacher Research Institute
shows, that every fifth German under 30 years "believes in
visitors from out of space" (5). At the same time the Emnid
Research Institute conducted a similar poll. This one even
showed that every fifth German regardless of age believes in a
UFO reality (6). A recent Gallup poll shows that every third US
American believes that earth has been visited (7).

(1) http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/archive.asp?doc={27286BCF-37BB-11D5-A
3B5-009027BA22E4}&width=1024&height=740&agt=explorer&ver=4&svr=4
(2) http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/statistics2001.pdf
(3) http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/update2001.pdf
(4) http://www.BILD.de/service/archiv/2001/jun/15/politik/bush/bush.html
(5) http://www.ifd-allensbach.de/pdf/prd_0113.pdf
(6) http://www.chrismon.de/ctexte/2001/6/phenom.pdf
(7) http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010608.asp


Hannes la Rue

News & Web Master
MUFON-CES















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

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:13:27 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:23:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:31:44 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:54:07 -0300


Good Afternoon List, All -

In my response to Stan Friedman, I wrote:

 >According to Bill Moore Fleck Danley pinned down the date, more
 >or less, to the late 1940s. He didn't actually confine it to July 1947,
 >and when I talked to Danley, he wasn't sure about the dates. (To
 >be fair, he wasn't sure about much of anything.)


Clearly, I should have written:

According to Bill Moore, Fleck Danley pinned down the date, more
or less, to the summer of 1947...


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 >
   Jul > Jul 3

              Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:34:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:54:01 -0400
Subject: Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble
 >Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:24:02 -0000

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:40:32 -0400

 >>>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 04:19:20 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble

 >>>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.

 >>I agree. Haven't looked into it in detail, but I've read Budd's
 >>book and Debbie Jordan's book, and what John says is true.

 >>Greg Sandow

 >I second what Greg says here. It seems like a strong case to me.
 >But then there are a lot of strong cases and highly articulate
 >witnesses; I have had the good fortune to work with some and to
 >meet others, which is why I don't hesitate to say that
 >abductions are (a) no joke, and (b) not glibly explainable in
 >terms of pop psychology, which is about as far as the
 >skeptibunkers ever get.

Which is why I offered up the Debbie Jordan case. I'd love to
see how the 'pop psychologists' apply sleep paralysis and Satanic
ritual abuse to the reported details of this case. Or the Allagash
four case. Or any number of other equally compelling reports of
UFO abduction.

One of the problems that has surfaced in terms of the ongoing
dialog is that cases involving fully conscious, close-up, UFO
contact followed by an abduction or missing time, have been
relegated to the dust bin in favor of all the reports that begin
with, "I was in bed asleep when....." In other words, in favor
of more 'easily explained' reports. Or, those reports which are
'nebulous' to begin with and therefore open to all kinds of
interpretation. I don't pretend to know how to properly
prioritize case reports for consideration. It just seems to me
(based on common sense) that researchers would want to spend
their valuable time tackling the tough cases, not the weak ones.

 >I witnessed Klass questioning a panel of abductees in a public
 >setting. Now there's a joke!

 >Dick

Yeah, I had the pleasure of debating his first Lieutenant Joe
Nickel several years ago. I found Joe to be 'easy meat'. All I
had to do was to mention on air (the TV program was going out
live) all the other phenomena that CSICOP is actively debunking
(ie; God, religion, UFOs, all psychic phenomena, etc.) and the
host took it from there. It left poor ole' Joe looking like the
closed minded fanatic that he is.

Now, if you want to talk about "religious cults", CSICOP fits
the bill to a tee. A 'religious' conviction and fervor lies at
their core. ;)

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 >
   Jul > Jul 3

               Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:12:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 19:36:01 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... Randle


 >Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 13:26:20 -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: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:18:42 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>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...

<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.

 >Hello Kevin,

 >I believe that I already responded to your question. In case it
 >wasn't clear in my original, I don't think there are any
 >similarities between "abduction" reports, and those of "Satanic"
 >or "ritual" abuse. I used one of my own experiences as an
 >example.

Hello, John, List -

I take it from your response that you don't believe there is any
validity to the reports of Satanic Ritual Abuse. I do see that
you don't believe there are any similarities. Thank you for the
answer. And, I might point out that I haven't suggested that
Satanic Ritual Abuse in any way explains accounts of alien
abduction.

 >Cases involving fully conscious UFO contact/encounters (while
 >the person is wide awake and out and about conducting their
 >daily business) such as the one I shared, or the reports of
 >Travis Walton, Debbie Jordan, and many others are ignored by
 >certain "investigators" in favor of explaining cases where the
 >individual was at home sleeping when the "abduction" ensued. If
 >someone is at home and fast asleep when an abduction ensues it
 >leaves the door open for explanations such as; "sleep paralysis"
 >etc. But it is not so for the incidents involving fully
 >conscious individuals who were say; driving home from work,
 >experience a close-up encounter with a UFO and who subsequently
 >report either a full blown kidnapping/abduction or missing time.
 >And who exhibit some 'physical' symptoms afterwards that they
 >can't explain.

 >My point is: you cannot apply the "sleep paralysis" explanation
 >to an individual who is walking home, or driving their car when
 >the UFO contact and abduction happens. There may be paralysis
 >reported in these cases as well, but under those circumstances
 >the perpetrators of the abduction become the source of it, and
 >not some malfunction either physical or psychological on the
 >participants part. In the Walton case those 5 guys were driving
 >home when they encountered the UFO. Debbie and her mom were
 >their own backyard when the UFO made its incursion onto their
 >property, I was walking home when I encountered a UFO not 60
 >feet away from me. Just how does "sleep paralysis" or "Satanic"
 >anything explain those encounters?

I never suggested that sleep paralysis explained all cases of
alien abduction, or that it was even a factor in most of them.
In our research, the number of people who reported an episode
that seemed to mirror sleep paralysis was less than 50%,
something like 48% to be a little more accurate. Eddie Bullard's
study placed the number at around 20%, though he did not have
complete information.

The suggestion then, is that, in some cases, sleep paralysis is
the precipitating event. This is not offered as an explanation
for all cases of alien abduction, or even the majority, but
symptoms that mirror sleep paralysis do occur in, at the very
least, about a quarter of the reports.

 >You and other "researchers" want to tackle the cases you think
 >you can easily dismiss with 'one size fits all' explanations
 >like "sleep paralysis" or 'Satanic/ritual' abuse etc. You won't
 >dare go near a Betty & Barney, Debbie Jordan, or Travis Walton
 >case with your "sleep paralysis" and "the Devil made me do it"
 >explanations because you already know that; a. it doesn't apply
 >in those cases, and b. because it will not explain -all- that
 >was reported in those cases.

Actually, if we return to the Hill case, we have a report of a
close encounter, we have Barney Hill suggesting that he had seen
the crew of an alien ship through his binoculars, and we have a
report of missing time. Given the circumstances, with the Hills
attempting to identify the UFO, with them stopping to examine it
through the binoculars, it is not unreasonable to believe that
their trip took longer because they were traveling slower than
normal.

And, Betty Hill remembered nothing of the abduction until she
began to dream about it in the days that followed. She, and
Barney, recalled additional details under hypnotic regression,
but only after the case had been investigated by UFO researchers
and discussed, if not between Barney and Betty, at least in
front of Barney. Dr. Simon, who conducted the sessions did not
believe that either Barney or Betty had been abducted by alien
creatures.

When we strip away all the rhetoric about the Hill abduction, we
are left with a report with no physical evidence attached and a
rather dubious star map. I hesitate to mention that because I
know what the response will be. I have read about the Fish
interpretation, I have read her protocols for selection of the
stars in her survey, and accept that they are logical, from a
terrestrial point of view. That doesn't make her assumptions
correct, or accurate, and it doesn't mean that her
interpretation is more accurate than the three others that I
have seen. And yes, I have the Astronomy magazine reprint that
addresses all of this and have studied it carefully. In the end,
however, this is an interesting part of the puzzle, but it is
not the physical evidence that we need.

I might point out here that Betty Hill does not accept, as
valid, the abductions as reported today. She believes that her
experience, if not unique, is extremely rare. She is quick to
reject the "modern" phenomenon.

 >So, instead of tackling the 'tough to explain cases' you and
 >others look to 'pick off' the weak sisters with these "in stock"
 >explanations that have in recent years become all the rage among
 >debunkers.

 >Please explain to me how either "sleep paralysis" or "Satanic
 >ritual abuse" explains (or even applies to,) the Walton case or
 >the Debbie Jordan case, or my own for that matter. Then maybe we
 >can have an intelligent dialog about it. It just seems to me
 >that yourself and others are "grasping at straws" and that by
 >"explaining" some abduction reports as either "sleep paralysis"
 >or "Satanic ritual abuse" you will somehow explain all abduction
 >reports. That's not only poor "science" it's pure BS and way too
 >simplistic to explain away the (literally) thousands of reports
 >of close encounters with UFOs that involve an abduction or
 >missing time, or physical marks and scars that were sustained
 >during the encounter.

No one has suggested that sleep paralysis or SRA explains or
applies to either the Jordan case or the Walton case. Nor, has
anyone suggested that an explanation of some cases can be
translated into an explanation for all cases. However, if sleep
paralysis is the solution to some cases, then shouldn't it be
applied to those cases? Should we not remove them from the list
because they clutter the data base and they hide alien
abduction?

 >Please explain to me how any of these "stock" explanations even
 >applies in the -few- cases I have mentioned. (I have many more
 >such cases if you need em. But I think these three illustrate my
 >point very well.) Good luck.

I never said it did. I have suggested that we examine some of
these phenomena, such as sleep paralysis, to understand how it
might be a factor in some cases.

 >To be perfectly honest Kevin, I'm just more than a little sick
 >and tired of being told by people who; were not there, or who
 >have never had a similar encounter, 'what I saw' or 'what really
 >happened to me' and that it was all a hallucination caused by
 >sleep paralysis or the result of some nonsense such as Satanic
 >or ritual abuse. I already told you that I was not asleep, and
 >that the Devil or his minions had nothing to do with it. So what
 >else you got for me?

John, I did not say that your experiences were the result of
sleep paralysis or that it had anything to do with SRA. I asked
a simple question here in an attempt to gather information and
learn a little more about what is going on. I asked it to the
list in general and didn't point it at you specifically. I'm
glad that you jumped in here, but remember I didn't direct
anything at you. I asked a question.

 >So far, the explanation that not only 'fits' my experience to a
 >tee, but is corroborated by many, many other individuals is that
 >I had a run in with an Unidentified flying object, and that the
 >occupants of the craft took me, performed some kind of
 >medical-like procedures, and then later returned me to my home.
 >Because that explanation is abhorrent to you intellectually does
 >not minimize how well it explains the events that I and others
 >have experienced.

John, you have asked for answers in the past. You have suggested
that you would like to understand what is happening to you, as
well as those thousands of others. To do that, we must gather as
much data, from as many sources, as possible. Sometimes the
questions might seem redundant and sometimes insensitive, but,
if we are all searching for the truth, wherever that truth might
be found, then shouldn't we ask the questions?

I applaud your passion and understand your convictions, but
can't you see the dilemma that the rest of us face? We have very
little scientifically collected data and that's what we need.
When we go back and look at the case histories that have been
collected for the last thirty years (and I have collected some
of them myself), we see little in the way of evidence. We have,
I guess, in a legal phrase, the presumption of evidence. Now we
have to move beyond that. We must begin attempting to find that
evidence which was why I was interested in the Dust Bunny
research. Here was a way of searching for that evidence, and if
found, could supply us with some facts. More of this sort of
thing should be done, though I understand the problems here -
lack of finance, lack of expertise, lack of equipment and so on.
This is, however, where we should be going and you have to admit
that all the researchers are saying much the same thing.

I might add here that the Jordan case is interesting, especially
the physical evidence aspect of it, but that evidence was
gathered improperly. The skeptics can criticize the collection
of the evidence and point at the flaws in it. That doesn't mean
that we reject the evidence, only that we must be aware of the
problems with it, and, if aware of the problems, remedy them the
next time.

 >The shortest distance between any two given points is a straight
 >line. You and others insist on taking the 'scenic route.'

But sometimes, on the scenic route, you see something that is
relevant... you have to look everywhere for answers.

 >Regards,

 >John Velez

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 >
   Jul > Jul 3

             Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:28:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 19:42:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sandow


 >From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:20:45 +0100

 >We keep hearing talk about the so-called "Son of Star Wars". In
 >Yorkshire (North England), Menwith Hill is being modernised and
 >set up to aid in the operation of Son of Star Wars, and there is
 >talk of killer satellites, and the United States Air Force are
 >testing a 747 aircraft armed with an airborne laser system.

 >Not long ago I heard rumours that the U.S. Department of Defence
 >had satellites parked out in space with their instruments
 >pointing not towards earth, but outwards into deep space.

 >In fact I did hear that an observatory in Australia had
 >accidently picked up one of these satellites on there monitoring
 >equipment. Much to the embarassment of the US DOD.

Etcetera.

I can't help noticing these phrases:

"We keep hearing talk...Not long ago I heard rumours...In fact I
did hear..."

No facts. Just talk, rumors, things we hear people talking about.

If we're going to be alarmed, maybe we should be alarmed about
things we really know for sure are happening.

 >So with all this in mind and the persistant continuation of the
 >Starwars programme, and now we haer that the new US Defence
 >Secretary wanting to start a Space Force under the command of
 >the US Air Force, one has to ask just who the hell is all this
 >being directed against?

 >This should be open for debate. Comments and suggestions greatly
 >appreciated.

To anyone who knows the right-wing politics of the Bush
administration, none of this is surprising. The cold war is long
over, but still many leading members of the Republican party in
America want to go on fighting it. They're suspicious of Russia
and China. They worry about North Korea. The revived talk about
the "star wars" missile defense is all about missiles that might
be launched by "rogue states" like North Korea.

The space force is most likely about the future of war, as some
Americans imagine it - they want to be ready for anything. It's
also characteristic of Republicans that they want to pump money
into the military. A space force would cost a lot of money. They
imagine, to be fair, some future war in which some other country
might have a force in space. In some ways that seems silly -
the Russian space program doesn't seem very impressive these
days, and China barely has one. But some of the Republican
leaders are used to thinking of Russia and China as deadly
enemies, and I'm sure they could even imagine weird scenarios in
which - after some future political realignment - we might
have to defend our satellites against Japan, or even Europe.

What we have here, to summarize, is a combination of several
things - cold-war memories, a touch of paranoia (associated
with the idea of America going it alone in an increasingly
hostile world), a long-time habit of spending vast amounts of
money on the military, and an assessment (not always
unreasonable) of possible future threats. We don't need to
invoke UFOs to understand what's going on.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:36:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:06:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Young


 >Date: 2 Jul 2001 14:58:01 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

<snip>

 >Bush was simply informing Carter of the channels needed to
 >obtain the information. We could just as well ask "Why didn't
 >Carter just order a plane and fly out to Area-51 and kick down
 >the doors? or execute anyone who refused to give him what he
 >asked for? Because, even as President channels are followed.

<snip>

 >Bush gave his evaluation about how to get the information, just
 >the _same_ way Melvin Laird advised the Clinton administration
 >how to get at the classified UFO information. Same s**t,
 >different day.

Grant, List:

Same s**t, indeed.

The President executing anybody who stands in his way? What bad
action movie have you been watching? Do you actually expect
anybody to take this nonsense seriously?

Bob Young

------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as Paranoia in this world. Anything you
suspect will turn out to be true if you pursue it long enough.
Paranoia is just another word for Ignorance.

                  - - Hunter S. 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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

               Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:41:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:12:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Mortellaro


 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:02:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight!

 >>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:33:33 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight!

 ><snip>

 >Greetings John and everyone.

 >Every Saturday I look forward to my weekly fix of three hours of
 >news and comments about UFOs on Errol's 'Strange Days... Indeed'
 >radio show. Last night I listened to a special edition of 'SDI'
 >which featured Dr. John Mack and the above mentioned guests
 >including regular commentator, Dave "Furry" Furlotte (who I
 >suspect John Velez missed hearing since he had nothing to say
 >about Dave's comments that abductees should be "locked-up").

 >I agree with John Velez and Greg Sandow that more research and
 >independent investigations need to be done in the UFO abduction
 >phenomena since after many years, we are not much further ahead
 >in our understanding of what we are really dealing with. Also,
 >we may not be as opened minded as we think we are when trying to
 >come to terms with this phenomena. It was refreshing to hear a
 >qualified and respected individual as Dr. Mack talk about
 >certain things that come up in this phenomena which we choose to
 >overlook or find objectionable such as the religious or 'New
 >Age' aspects. By closing some doors before exploring what is on
 >the other side may prevent us from ever finding the answers in
 >our search for the truth.

 >My training in modern science and much work experience in this
 >field has lead me to study the UFO abduction phenomena from a
 >different angle. Although I have yet to find physical proof for
 >the reality of the UFO phenomena from my direct involvement with
 >many suspected UFO or E.T. artifacts, including the 'Dust Bunny'
 >project, it is something very much worth doing if we are to
 >understand even a single facet of this phenomena. Yes, UFOs do
 >exist and related phenomena such as abductions are very real
 >(both physical and psychological/spiritual) to us but unless we
 >can further increase our knowledge of what we are studying, we
 >won't be able to enlighten others or to make them appreciate the
 >true nature of the Universe we are a part of.

 >Nick Balaskas

 >P.S. John Velez will be getting microphotographs of all 51 dust
 >samples in the mail sometime after tomorrow. I would be very
 >curious to learn what he notices in these preliminary images.
 >There is one image of a dust particle that reminded me of a
 >crashed microflying saucer with three porthole windows. Like the
 >Face on Mars, maybe it was just a lighting effect, or maybe
 >not...

 >Happy 'ID4' to our fellow Americans south of the border.

 >>P.P.S. During last night's UFO radio show, John Velez observed
 >how the UFO abdcution phenomena takes place at night under the
 >cover of darkness. This single fact made me wonder about life
 >that does not require energy from the Sun.

 >Prior to 1977 I think it is safe to say that biologists believed
 >all life on Earth, animal and plant, required energy from the
 >Sun. Since then, astrobiologists continue to study certain
 >plant- like tube worms found deep in our oceans that derive
 >their energy from chemosynthesis, not photosynthesis. The fact
 >that the byproduct of chemosynthesis is sulfur and not oxygen as
 >in photosynthesis, may be a very important clue in our
 >understanding of the UFO abduction phenomena. We are aware that
 >sulfur odours are frequently reported by abductees and in some
 >cases, yellow (sulphur?) stained clothing has been collected by
 >researchers such as Victor Vigianni and Tom Theofanous. Does
 >this suggest certain E.T. aliens have physiologies similar to
 >the "alien-like" tube worms which require no light that are
 >found deep in the Earth's oceans? Any comments?

Dear Nick, List and EBK;

Overall, your show Errol, was a masterpiece. I thouroughly
enjoyed the entire show, and partricularly, hearing John Mack's
views. I even enjoyed listening to Greg and John. Greg, your
professionalism is without peer. Even so, I do not always agree
with you. But heck, that is allowed in'it? And of course, there
is no one on UpDates who is not aware of the significant
differences in paradigms, points of view and other assorted
stuff, between John and Gesundt. But that too, is allowed. For
which I am greatful to EBK.

I sit here enjoying a cup of Cafe' Barbera. Much better than
Gripple or even Larry's Grolsh. Thank you for your care package
my friend in Sicily, Elio Barbera. With this cup, I drink to you
Nick. And for the following reasons.

First. I've heard criticisms of those who embrace NAT (New Age
Thinking) for the last time without wanting to upchuck my
Sicilian brew. I admire you for saying so eloquently what would
cause me to say with angst. You are quite right. Last night I
heard commentary which were at least negative of Mack's views
purely on the basis of an expectation due to his membership in
the community of mainstream science. Well, by God, membership in
that community does not preclude having opinions contrary to
people's expectations. In Mack's case, it was expected that from
his position, he would embrace paradigms which Velez and Sandow
embraced ... and doing so, virtually guaranteed membership in
that community of UFO experiencers and researchers. Membership
in the "mainstream UFO club" with ideas not counter to Hopkins'
views. And that would have likely given UFO research the
foundation it required to have garnered greater respect from
mainstream science and their community of largely opinionated
scientists. But the real world tells us that anyone with
interest in this \phenom, is opinionated in extremis. Usually.
And because of their vectored paradigms, it is important to pick
and choose, to wade thru what is not our view to get at a truth.
Surely there is some truth in the NAT paradigm.

Maybe, and by virtue of Mack's taking on that subject and
spending huge amounts of money in order to protect his chair at
Harvard, maybe his paradigm was so different that it precluded
joining the UFO old boys network.

I am neither a proponent nor one who embraces NAT. But I am a
man who defends (and often to the tune of great criticism)
anyone, his right to have an opinion. For in that opinion or
theory, might be that kernel of truth to which I often refer.

I would study everything, even the garbage squared crowd, than
to simply dismiss out of hand, anyone who does not share what we
personally believe to be the right way to truth. By God
almighty, isn't that what our own detractors do? And we turn
around and do the same.

Nick, your words have at times, caused you to be deeply
criticised. By some who (as I wrote on Rense) "Smile to your
face, but behind your back they hissss!" And merely because your
views on the phenom are not quite UFO old boy mainstream in
terms of certain specifics.

NAT is often strange and certainly in my case, against my own
truth sense. But it exists. And Mack, a medical doctor,
psychiatrist and member of a highly regarded institution of
learning, deserves more respect from all of us.

Second. I owe many people an apology. In an article I wrote for
the Sightings.Com web site, I was critical of the research
community as a whole. I also made comments which in the present,
I realize were inappropriate because I neglected to name those
researchers who are highly trained in the sciences. I mentioned
Dr. Jacobs and Dr. Mack, but I did not mention so many more who
belonged in that essay. I am asking Jeff Rense to add my
comments and apologies to the essay. Here, in UpDates, I would
like, with deep regret, apologize.

People such as Buggren and Bruce Maccabee, Stan Freidman and so
many others.

See the article and yell at me off-List. I am getting sick and
tired of the tirades against the greatest of all researchers,
the man who maintains the highest respect and position of all
the voices in my head, Dr. J. Jaime Gesundt... Vinter and
Researcher.

Well, my Cafe' Barbera, sadly, is finito. I cannot write another
word. Except to tell you the URL for the article. God help me
for doing this without body armor.
http://www.sightings.com/general11/name.htm

With blessings, love and respect for everyone who seeks truth,
even his or her own.


Dr. James S. Mortellaro,
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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

                          Filer's Files #27 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 19:10:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:16:54 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #27 -- 2000


Filer's Files #27 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
July 2, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts, Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

UFO REPORTS DECLINE IN US, BUT PICK UP AROUND THE WORLD

UFOs are reported in New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, Illinois,
Iowa, Colorado, California, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Germany,
UK, Italy, and Japan. On July 4, 2001, the Earth is furthest
from the Sun. COMET LINEAR - C/2001 A2 made its closest
approach to Earth on June 30th, glowing at visual magnitude 4.
Although, Comet LINEAR is not spectacular, it is easy to spot
with the unaided eye as it tends to brighten and dim. For
finder charts visit: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacewarn/

DISCLOSURE PROJECT REVELATIONS

WASHINGTON DC -- On May 9, at the National Press Club some
twenty former government employees claiming encounters with
unidentified flying objects while performing military or
government duties went public to demand open congressional
hearings on this mostly highly classified phenomenon. Air Force
Academy graduate Captain Robert Salas, who spent seven years on
active duty, reported that in March of 1967, UFOs flying above
Minuteman Missile silos at Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) in
Montana had knocked off line a dozen nuclear intercontinental
ballistic missiles. The witnesses gave a picture of UFOs
frequently hovering over key military and nuclear sites
nationwide. UFOs also penetrated airspace around nuclear
weapons systems in the autumn of 1975. Security forces at
Loring AFB, Maine, Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan, and others along
the Northern Border including Malmstrom AFB again were
scrambled. At least one fighter was lost chasing the UFOs. Lt.
Colonel Dwynne Arneson was in! charge of the Communication
Center at the Twentieth Air Division at Malestrom and
dispatching nuclear launch authentication's to SAC missile
crews. He saw messages stating UFOs were near the missile
silos. Crew coming to work and going off duty saw the metallic
circular objects shinning lights down on the missile silos and
shutting them down.

UFOs also penetrated the airspace around nuclear weapons
systems in the autumn of 1975. Security forces at Loring AFB,
Maine, Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan, and others along the Northern
Border including Malmstrom AFB again were scrambled. At least
one fighter was lost chasing the UFOs. He saw messages stating
UFOs were near the missile silos. Crews coming to work and
going off duty saw the metallic circular objects hovering above
the missile silos. Professor Robert Jacobs, who was an Air
Force Lieutenant reports he was in charge of the 1369th team
filming a ballistic missile launch from Vandenberg AFB. After
the second and third stage of the Atlas missile burned out and
departed a dummy warhead was left streaking for the target. An
UFO could be seen coming into the view tracking the warhead.
Beams of light were shot at the warhead repeatedly from the UFO
and the warhead started tumbling uncontrollably as the UFO flew
away.

The combined testimony of Disclosure witnesses indicates the
Earth is being visited by intelligently flown UFOs showing a
capability to locate our missile systems, to cause failure of
their guidance and control systems, and if necessary to destroy
them in flight. These combined activities indicate a
sophisticated intelligence providing a clear warning against
nuclear weapons. Numerous witnesses and documents back the
testimony. It is my opinion there must be a perception by the
leaders of these countries that a potential threat exists.
President Ronald Reagan went on national television and told
the world he was going to build a defensive shield called the
Strategic Defensive Initiative (SDI), generally called Star
Wars. Its mission was to protect us, to protect us all. We are
going to share with everybody including our enemy the Soviet
Union. A few years later, we became allies with the Russians
and now we fly together aboard the International Space Station.
Sometimes! truth is stranger than fiction. Perhaps the real
meaning of Reagan's remarks made to the 42nd General Assembly
of the United Nations on Sept. 21, 1987, during the height of
the Cold War, becomes more meaningful. Reagan stated, "In our
obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how
much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some
outside, universal threat to make us realize this common bond.
I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish
if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And
yet, I ask you, IS NOT AN ALIEN FORCE ALREADY AMONG US?"

NEW JERSEY UNDERWATER MYSTERY

SURF CITY -- On Friday, June 29, 2001, my wife, and daughter
were looking at the Atlantic Ocean just after dark about 8:30
PM and noticed a light moving under water. About thirty people
gathered on the beach to video tape and watch the strange
lights. I walked down the beach to the nearest point of the
underwater lights. They were moving about a hundred yards from
shore. Red green and white lights were observed. At times they
would swing in an arc extending out 15 to 20 yards. Gradually I
noticed the lights were moving toward the shore. Three alien
looking beings dressed in black rose up out of the ocean. They
wore dark masks and were of short stature. They were making
strange breathing sounds and stumbling as they came ashore. I
had my video camera on super night shot and got great shots and
finally the intruders were identified. Three young scuba divers
waded ashore with bags filled with shells and treasures of the
sea. They said the sea was teaming with small fi! sh, crabs and
squid. The onlookers were disappointed. They told me the night
before there were speeding lights maneuvering oven the ocean.
The lights would fly in from the north, come to a screeching
halt, hover, and fly off again. Many thought the lights under
the sea were connected to UFO sighting. Joe who owns Joe's
Towing told me he had never seen anything like the UFOs the
night before!

FLORIDA DISK SLOWLY MOVES LATERALLY

ST. PETERSBURG -- I was driving home at 7:00 PM with my brother
as passenger on 4th Street heading south when my attention was
drawn to look to my left through the driver's side window to
see a gold disk-shaped object on June 10, 2001, above the
treeline, which appeared to be pacing us at about 40 mph. I
turned to my brother to tell him to look at it. He saw it by
looking up through the sunroof so it must have moved up higher.
I stopped to observe it for about 4 minutes. The disk was now
stationary, and about 45 degrees up with a white light omitting
off it. We left for home leaving it behind and the next morning
I went back to the same spot at the same time just to view the
sky to see if there is anything that I could have mistaken it
for. There were no stars, nothing visible. Thanks to Peter
Davenport Director National Reporting Center www.nuforc.com

ILLINOIS FLYING RIGHT TRIANGLE

CHANSON -- The witness was sitting outside with his parents at
about 10:30 PM on June 10, 2001, watching the stars, when three
stars that had been sitting in the same spot started to move
across the sky at a constant pace. They sopped for a few
seconds, and then they would move higher, stop, and move across
the sky. This continued for two minutes before the objects were
completely out of view. The witness said, "I cannot really say
if it was one big craft, or three smaller crafts, but they
formed a perfect right triangle, and moved at the same speed,
and stopped at the same time the entire length of the event."
Satellites don't form perfect geometric shapes, and stop in
random spots across the sky. Now the object or objects never
really passed close to the ground, the entire time they
maintained a high altitude.

MICHIGAN GREEN/YELLOWISH LIGHT ON SAUCER

OAK PARK -- At 11:33 PM on June 16, 2001, the witness took his
Dalmatians out for walk in the park. The witness saw what he
thought was a lightning bug across the street at the park. I
followed this green yellowish light as it went straight up
slowly above the tree line, so he couldn't tell how close it
was. It wasn't flickering, just getting smaller. Then the light
started moving south to north without making a sound. He didn't
take his eyes off it; because he thought it was interesting and
realized it was not ascending any longer. He says, "I could see
some reflection from the city lights on the underside of the
craft." I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I saw a round
saucer shape with only one green yellowish light at the rear of
the object. As it went north he was able to follow it until it
slowly flew out of sight. The clouds were around 8,000 feet and
winds aloft were less than 5 knots. The craft never went behind
the clouds the whole time that I saw it, so! I know it was less
than 8,000 feet. I've never seen anything like this before!
Thanks to Peter NUFORC

IOWA FLYING TRIANGLE INVESTIGATION

AMES -- Beverly Trout Iowa MUFON State Director reports they
have investigated a case that occurred on May 17, 2001, when a
Ph.D. at Iowa State University, his wife, and three children
witnessed the sighting of a "huge," silent triangle with bright
blinking, strobing, and pulsing white lights. It was first seen
at about 50 degrees up from western horizon, and was last seen
about 30 degrees up from eastern horizon. The craft took three
minutes to cross this area at 9:45 PM. A few minutes later the
witnesses called Beverly. Subsequent investigation shows cloud
ceiling at 9,000 feet. The family estimated the object was at
an altitude of 5,000 feet, with closest approach at 85 degrees
almost overhead. The Flying Triangle was viewed by the husband
and wife through binoculars with 378 feet linear diameter field
of view @1,000 yards. Binocular field of view could not contain
the entire triangular object. That is, husband and wife could
NOT see the entire object within the fie! ld of view of their
binoculars. These are very credible witnesses.

Investigators having checked law enforcement, Iowa State
climatologist, and FAA, are convinced that whatever was seen
was, indeed "HUGE," and since we cannot easily explain it, it
remains in the UFO category. A neighbor to the above family saw
an unexplained aerial object between/beside their adjacent
homes on a previous occasion. In addition, the wife witness in
the above case had a daytime sighting three years ago near the
southwestern part of Ames. Plus, MUFON has been contacted with
abduction reports by several individuals in the Ames area --
all witnesses thus far check out as highly educated, credible
individuals with their psychological feet-on-the-ground, i.e.,
not wanting to over-conclude, but realizing that they've been
able to remain conscious at least part of the time during
encounters involving UFOs. Perhaps it's worth noting that only
seven (7) miles from Ames in 1996, two crop formations were
discovered, with plant and soil samples subsequently being
submitt! ed to Dr. W. C. Levengood's nonprofit laboratory in
Michigan with lab results clearing-showing anomalies associated
with the formations. Thanks to Bev Trout Iowa MUFON State
Director btufo@netins.net

COLORADO SATELLITE TURNS

DENVER -- Greg Lauver reports on June 28, 2001, he saw a
satellite 75 degrees up from the eastern horizon bearing south.
It changed its mind and curved east, and faded out. This
happened over Denver. I don't know if this qualifies as a
"sighting" or not, but I thought I would forward it on. Thanks
to Jim Hickman.

CALIFORNIA FLYING BASKETBALL

SIMI VALLEY -- A bright light coming through Esther Petersen's
bedroom window awakened her on June 25, 2001, around 3:00 AM.
She got up to look and to the northeast, she saw a very bright
light about the size of an orange, very high in the sky. The
object moved slowly and seemed to turn and had an irregular
basketball shape emitting an orange light from the bottom
reaching to the ground. She has made a drawing of what she saw,
showing several distinct shapes. At this time, she also
witnessed several round objects come from the first object and
hover around it. She woke up her sister, and they both watched
the object for another five minutes before everything just
vanished. Her sister's comment was that, "The stars were sure
beautiful tonight." Esther gave this report to Dr. Roger Leir,
Section Director of Ventura/Santa Barbara Counties MUFON. The
woman also said, she had seen, "a white, semi-clear figure
standing by her bed that communicated telepathically that she
would! understand all this at a later date." She did not notice
any other particular detail, other than that, "His hands were
large, and he seemed to fidget with them, as if he didn't know
what to do with them." Dr. Leir said, I've known this lady for
many years, and she is not prone to fantasy, she is a very
solid witness." NOTE: The town of Simi Valley is located near
Thousand Oaks, 40 miles north of Los Angeles. It is overlooked
by the Boeing/Rocketdyne facility, that has been the site of a
good deal of UFO activity. Thanks to Dr. Roger Leir and Don
Robertson GBR262 Board Member Ventura/Santa Barbara Counties
MUFON.

CANADA, "DID ET PHONE ALBERTA?"

ALBERTA -- The Calgary Sun of June 28, 2001, reports George
Hofer returned to his Hutterite colony in southeast Alberta
with a strange tale of a funnel of fire in a farmer's field.
The funnel lit up the night for an hour, then faded into
sparkles. A month later, farmer Ken Masson found a
three-metre-wide circle in his field, with four indentations
inside. Word spread quickly that an alien spacecraft had
landed. A University of Lethbridge geologist refuted the UFO
theory, but replaced it with an explanation nearly as
interesting. Pano Karkanis said the crater in Masson's field
near Etzikom, 250 km southeast of Calgary, was caused by a
meteorite. Karkanis analyzed the soil in the crater and tested
it for radioactivity. He found no signs of radioactive material
that might suggest exposure to extraterrestrial technology. He
dismissed the indentations as marks made by rainfall, saying
the meteorite probably buried itself a meter deep in Masson's
field. But Karkanis' findings dr! ew criticism. Masson himself
didn't buy the rainwater explanation, pointing out the area had
been dry as a bone, with farmers such as himself lamenting the
absence of rainfall. Others have said a meteorite wouldn't
produce the effect Hofer saw, and that it would have left
residue in the crater. Also, the crater's perfectly circular
shape is not likely the result of a meteorite impact, believers
said.  Thanks to Gerry Farshores -
www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/

MEXICAN SIGHTINGS CONTINUE AT VOLCANO

Troy Allen reports since June 25, 2001, he is observing UFOs
over Popocatptl near Mexico City almost daily from the
volcano's observation camera. Over sixty UFOs have been seen in
recent weeks. The volcano is active and dark objects can be
seen flying around the area. UFO s appear to have an interest
in the volcano since the December 21, 1994, eruption, ending
decades of slumber. RI MUFON's Janet Bucci indicates she saw
UFOs at the site on July 3, 2001. Small elliptical colored
light that changes color (green, blue, pink, purple, yellow)
that is more or less stationary (sometimes it moves a little
bit, or is closer or further away from the webcam lens) and a
larger roundish or flattened whitish light that moves from
snapshot to snapshot and is much closer to the forefront
(sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not). Photos are
available at: http://looknowings.homestead.com/camview.html and
http://www.communities.msn.com/spyman2002_whatsnew.msn.
http://www.cenapred.unam.mx/! mvolcan.html Thanks to Troy Allen

ARGENTINA HUGE FOOTBALL STADIUM SIZE UFO

CACHI -- The Newspaper Diario "El Tribuno" June 25, 2001, "It
was the size of a football stadium," claims the witness who
filmed a massive UFO. "This is the most incredible document
that has ever been seen and I achieved it with my own camera,"
said journalist Antonio Zuleta, who filmed 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 film. 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 Mountains. 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, even landings by
these craft. I have heard stories since I was a kid and I never
go anywhere without my camcorder. I have a late model Sony
which has become my new traveling companion," Zuleta expanded.
"It was nearly 21:00 hours on Saturday. Cachi was still ablaze
with the St.John's Night bonfires. He was taking his daughter
to the hospital when he noticed a flash. The object was
enormous and moved slowly at 15,000 meters, and 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, when it suddenly accelerated to a fantastic
speed and was lost in space," said the witness. A specialist
from Salta analyzed the film and considers it to be legitimate.
The sighting occurred only a few hours away from the 54th
anniversary of the first official UFO report by Kenneth Arnold
on June 24th 1947. The object made intelligent movements,
accelerated and decelerated at prodigious speeds, and was
surrounded by a green outline, Also, it has a white core and
produced red and blue flashes while projecting violet and
sky-blue beams. It was oval in shape, although in the video,
its movements give it the appearance of changing shape
constantly. "It might be a mothership!" Thanks to Scott
Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology and Gloria Coluchi.
Translation (C) 2001

MUTUAL UFO NETWORK - CENTRAL EUROPEAN SOCIETY.

MUNICH - The June report from MUFON Central European Society
(CES) states, "We keep on receiving about two reports per month
that stay unidentified." We have studied 431 UFO reports since
1974. Most objects were reported to be saucer shaped (26 %),
ball shaped objects/lights (24 %), triangular/quadrangular
objects (15 %) and unusually shaped objects (12 %). As updated
statistics show we could identify 62 objects on photos and 18
objects on film. Additional 48 reports without photos or film
could be identified. In 62.5 % of the identified cases disco
laser light shows were misinterpreted as UFOs. 303 cases (70 %)
remain unidentified. 48 previously unpublished cases (including
drawings) are now online in German language. See
http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/update2001.pdf. In 2000, we could
not identify 17 UFO reports (in 1999:15; 1998:29; 1997:25).
Last month we received two very typical reports of objects that
scared the observers. During the night June 8 to 9th two milk!
y white shining objects as big as the moon pursued a married
couple. The witnesses were scared because they felt the objects
were watching them and hovered above their house until the
objects disappeared. On May 28, a woman observed three 40
meters wide and 16 meters long triangles at about 200 meters
altitude that moved very slowly. The objects appeared
"threatening" because the rumbling objects were so close. After
investigation it is clear that some reports remain unexplained
but nationwide subscription newspapers, are as skeptical and
polemic as ever.

Interestingly Germany's leading tabloid newspaper BILD recently
speculated; that NATO had fear of UFOs after George W. Bush
mysteriously spoke of new threats. See
http://www.BILD.de/service/archiv/2001/jun/15/politik/bush/bush
.html. A representative poll of the Allensbacher Research
Institute shows that every fifth German under 30 years
"believes in visitors from out of space." The Emnid Research
Institute poll showed that every fifth German regardless of age
believes in a UFO reality. A recent Gallup poll shows that
every third American believes earth has been visited.  Thanks
to Hannes la Rue News & Web Master MUFON-CES.
http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/statistics2001.pdf

UNITED KINGDOM VIDEO

Karl Horvath writes, "Filer's Files should link to the BBC news
account of the woman in the UK that filmed the UFO. Since they
show only a still from the video, it is my fear that this video
will never make it to the public domain." Here is the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1363000/1363848.stm.
Thanks to Karl Horvath.

ITALY CROWD WATCHES UFO

CREMONA -- Corriere della Sera [Evening Courier June 19 2001 By
Sperangelo Bandera reports that many people equipped with
binoculars and cameras saw an orange light in the sky on Friday
night, June 15th. It was observed to fly very fast towards the
east and then return to the same point in the sky. The flying
disc was seen near midnight from the area of Stagno [Pond]
Lombardo, Martignana Po, to Casalmaggiore and Vicoboneghisio,
all communities that border the river Po." I thought that it
was Sirius," said Claudia, a witness, "I understood that it
could not be that star, because it proceeded to zigzag and
emanate an orange light. It moved much too fast to be a
satellite." Pier Toscani and his mother Katia also saw the UFO
from their shop in Casalmaggiore. "I am skeptical," he said,
"but I admit its intermittent light left an impression on me.
My mother was frightened. "Many people are being organized with
cameras hoping to discover its true nature." Thanks to Jerry
Fars! hores

JAPAN MANEUVERING LIGHTS

CHIGASAKI BEACH, KANAGAWA, -- Masinaigan reports that on June
20, 2001, Two large very bright lights hovering low in the sky
between 8:00-8:15 PM. Difficult to judge distance but further
away than an island that is about 2km off-shore. Size was also
difficult to judge, but 10 times the size of nearby lights on
fishing boats. The lights moved slowly up and down,
occasionally slowly disappearing and reappearing. Once a third
light also appeared. The lights were yellowish and very bright.
After 15 minutes they all went out. Thanks to Joseph Trainor
reports@ufoinfo.com

AUSTRALIA LIGHTS

ST HELENS PARK, SYDNEY -- On June 23, 2001, two bright orange
lights about approached from the west in the northern winter
night's sky about 10:00 PM. They hovered for about 1/2 hour
then proceeded east and vanished. The lights had a steady glow
and did not blink. The objects flew faster than a domestic
plane. Thanks to Cheryl Baldo (cherylbaldo@hotmail.com.au

NATIONAL UFO REPORTING CENTER

SEATTLE -- Director Peter B. Davenport writes: We have found
FAA personnel to be extraordinarily helpful with regard to the
UFO phenomenon. They probably are our best source of accurate,
factual data regarding dramatic UFO sightings. We have received
countless telephone calls from controllers and supervisors, who
appear to be every bit as fascinated by the UFO phenomenon as
we investigators. Some specific cases come to mind. On November
17, 1995, when multiple fireballs streaked across New England,
down the east coast, and were later seen over the Northwest,
the second call we received was from an FAA controller out of
Nashua, NH. Because of the call, NUFORC was able to obtain the
audio footage of two airliners reporting the event as they
departed New York for Europe.

When a disc-shaped object paced a turbo-prop airliner near
Saginaw, MI, on February 27, 1996, the FAA controller called us
and express mailed a pre-release audiotape of the radio
communications. It allowed the principal aviation journalist at
The Plain Dealer newspaper in Cleveland to write a two-page
article about the incident...(which was "spiked" by his
editor.) When a huge, triangular formation of unusually bright
lights approached two airliners just north of Dallas/Ft. Worth
on the morning of October 26, 1999, the first call we received
was from an FAA controller. He express mailed certain crucial
materials of interest. When a "cruise missile" shaped object
streaked past two executive jets over Missouri on November 11,
1999, the first report of the incident we received was from an
FAA supervisor. There are many other examples, if anyone needs
more evidence. From my vantage point, the FAA is not "part of
the cover-up." In fact, they appear to be unsung heroes in all!
of this. Please, don't criticize our best source of
information! Thanks to: Peter B. Davenport, Director National
UFO Reporting Center director@ufocenter.com
http://www.UFOcenter.com Hotline: 206-722-3000

ANNUAL MUFON SYMPOSIUM will be held July 20 - 22, 2001, in
Irvine, California The MUFON SYMPOSIUM annually features the
top UFO researchers from around the world. This year is no
exception. There is no other place in the world where you can
hear and meet so many top UFO researchers and scientists at one
time. Everyone reading this flyer should attend a MUFON
SYMPOSIUM at least once. Attendance can be a life-changing
experience. See http://www.mufon.com/home.html

PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO shots available and
data on their propulsion systems by US Navy Commander Graham
Bethune.. $10.00

A 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.! 95 (US) to: David Twichell, P.O. Box 511,
Trenton MI. 48183-0511

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.

Happy July 4th. God Bless









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

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:19:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:19:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:30:23 -0000

 >Stan,

 >I respect your overall contributions to Ufology, but your
 >continued defense of Gerald Anderson is beginning to make you
 >look silly.

 >Since when does any rational person start apologizing for liars,
 >hoaxers, and forgers? If you do that, by what double standard
 >can you discount Adamski, Greer, Corso, etc., etc.?

 >Dick

Dick,

I'm with you on this one.

If I've got it right, Friedman's reasoning regarding Barney
Barnett and a third crash in the Plains of St. Augustin goes
something like this (and anyone please correct me where I'm
wrong):

A bona fide diary that didn't mention anything about such a
crash is enlisted as evidence that there was indeed such a
crash.

Subsequently, a diary that did confirm such a crash, but which
was later demonstrated to be a blatant hoax, is also enlisted as
evidence of a crash, presumably because its hoax/author passed a
polygraph test.

What is wrong with this picture? A will to believe any and
everything one is told. (Friedman has never yet met a New Mexico
crashed saucer story that he didn't welcome with open arms.)

Why do ugologists put up with this slipshod sort of crap?

Don't expect an answer anytime soon. After all, Friedman is
presently in Roswell, promoting his view of events, which, you
can bet your ass, includes anything but a criticism or rational
assessment of Anderson and his long ago discredited claims.
And you wonder why there are still UFO skeptics out there?

Hell, ufology itself gives them all the ammunition they need
not to take the subject seriously.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

              Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:21:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Tonnies


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Date: 2 Jul 2001 18:11:20 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

<snip>

 >Witnesses have told me that sliding their hand over the outside
 >surface of a UFO felt like gliding over a film of soap. Another
 >clue. Distilling all the clues from witness data alone can lead
 >to attempts at reverse engineering in my opinion.

I agree. There are other aspects to close encounters that lend
themselves nicely to nanotech interpretations, such as the
often-reported "uniformly lit, seamless walls" described by
abductees. UFOs themselves are very rarely described as having
"rivets," and more often than not, doors which open cannot be
discerned once closed, as if the seam is molecular.

We'll probably be making materials of this ourselves within a
matter of decades. I recommend K. Eric Drexler's "Engines of
Creation" for a comprehensive layman's look at how nanotech will
affect engineering, medicine, etc.

If some UFOs are in fact ET craft, then I predict they're more
"grown" more than "built."

=====
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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 3 Jul 2001 18:33:37 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:26:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:26:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:23:31 EDT
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks

 >>>>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>>>UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

 ><snip>

 >Well that comment at Emory seems to contradict the idea that DCI
 >Bush refused to give him UFO information back in late 1976/early
 >1977, since such a refusal is in effect a coverup.

Bush did tell him how to get the material, and it appears Carter
followed the suggestion. Maybe Carter was content with the
answers he got back. Carter told Shirley McLean that the
material in her book "Out on a Limb" was true, and in a related
rumor McLean was told by Carter the government had bodies.
Carter was all over the map in his statements.

Carter maintained he had never said the words attributed to him
in the 1976 Enquirer article.( releasing everything on UFOs if
he became President) Yet researchers in Wisconsin have Carter
quoted in March 1976 saying something pretty close.

Maybe - if we want to speculate Carter found out the truth.
There are no UFOs, and we are all wasting our time. Anything is
possible.

 >Also what did Stan Friedman find out from Carter? (You mention
 >that later on.) That would again seem to be highly pertinent to
 >evaluating the Sheehan story

It was a brief brief meeting in an airport. Stanton was talking about
the problems of getting material from CIA and NSA and Carter
commented about hiring Turner because he was a former classmate
etc. No big leaks in that meeting.

 >><snip>

 >Let me add that it just seems strange because one thinks of a
 >"highly classified major evaluation" of UFO's and ETI as
 >something scientific and technical whereas with the Vatican one
 >thinks of "religious." Yes it is true that religious
 >implications must be considered _if_ ETI is real but it seems
 >Carter was trying to get to that point first, i.e., establish
 >that ETI is real by finding out what the US Govt knew about the
 >nature or origin of UFO's. Religious issues would be a diversion
 >from that goal of establishing UFO ETI reality especially if
 >Carter was already having trouble getting info out of the
 >government he now headed or was about to head.

All hypotheticals. I am sure Sheehan was as surprized as anyone.
I don't believe he had an UFO background before this call.

 >><snip>

 >This is not quite correct. DCI Bush met with Carter again for
 >the 5th time on Dec 9, 1976, for a 20-minute briefing in the
 >middle of a larger briefing by CIA staff. So there were two Bush
 >briefings of Carter while he was President-elect, not one.

We are wading into the "impossible to prove." Possibilities also
exist they met secretly, discussed it on the phone, or a whole
host of other possibilities.The point is that at some point
according to the Sheehan story Carter asked Bush as President
for information on UFOs. Sheehan, for example, thought it had
occured after Carter became President which is impossible.

Marcia Smith may know when it was, Carter will know, and the
Disney people who put out a documentary in 1995 may know. In it
they stated "When [Jimmy Carter] assumed the office of President
of the United States, his staff attempted to explore the
availability of official investigations into alien contact. As
this internal government memo illustrates, there are some
security secrets outside the jurisdiction of the White House."

The when is not critical to the story.

<snip>

 >It makes better sense that Carter might have asked _both_ DCI
 >Bush then DCI Turner. But it doesn't make sense that an almost
 >embarrassing request outside the Executive Branch to the
 >Congressional Research Service can at all be considered "the
 >correct procedure" for "getting the information." Carter as
 >President headed the Executive Branch. It is certainly unusual
 >if not slightly improper for Carter to request Executive Branch
 >info on UFO's from the Legislative Branch instead of getting it
 >from his branch.

 >And the choice of the CRS is odd. CRS researches legislative
 >issues. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA),
 >now abolished, had the responsibility for in-depth scientific
 >studies. If Carter wanted to put some teeth into the inquiry
 >through the Legislative Branch he should have instigated a GAO
 >audit - something like what happened with Roswell in 1993-4. The
 >GAO has a huge staff of personnel with full clearances and a
 >track record of acting aggressively to investigate and report
 >abuses.

The CRS did research UFO issues. That is beyond question, even if the
published reports seemed insignificant as Dick Hall maintains. Carter
could have done a lot of things, but there is not even circumstantial
evidence for all the hypothetical possibilities.

<snip>

 >But I think you're missing the point: Carter didn't ask for the
 >meeting which became a briefing. Bush did. Surely Bush wasn't
 >trying to force UFO info on Carter was he? On Nov 5, 1976, DCI
 >Bush phoned asking for the meeting with Carter to discuss
 >"exotic and very closely held items relating to sources and
 >methods." This phrase couldn't relate to Carter's request for
 >UFO data, since it was Bush's request. It is tempting to try to
 >see "exotic" as a euphemism for UFO's but it would indicate Bush
 >wanted to tell Carter about the "exotic" subject of UFO's if
 >that's the case. That would contradict Sheehan's story that Bush
 >had refused Carter's request for UFO data.

You have become overwhelmed by the hour and minute of the
question. Carter had openly discussed his sighting. He could
have asked the UFO question during the question period in the
briefing, during a washroom break. The point to establish is did
he ask for the UFO information, and what did Bush reply. We
could hash out the "when" till the cover-up ends.

 >>Bush gave his evaluation about how to get the information,
 >>JUST THE SAME WAY Melvin Laird advised the Clinton administration
 >>how to get at the classified UFO information. Same shit, different
 >>day.

<snip>

 >Did Laird tell Clinton or science advisor Dr. Jack Gibbons to
 >ask the Congressional Research Service for UFO data? Seems more
 >likely that a well-connected and well-informed Beltway insider
 >such as Laird would have suggested the Congressional Office of
 >Technology Assessment (OTA) which Gibbons had directed for 14
 >years immediately prior to coming to the White House, since OTA
 >would have been more appropriate for in-depth scientific
 >analysis than the CRS. Even so, if it was an issue of getting
 >info out of existing agencies rather than studying a technical
 >issue, the GAO would have been the appropriate Congressional
 >agency, assuming such an approach outside the Executive Branch
 >was needed by Clinton.

I don't have those papers with me. My recollection is Laird
advised Defense Secretary Les Aspin that the declassification of
the UFO material was not an issue for the defense dep't. It
should go to Gibbons. The CRS never came up. The point is it is
not unusual for people inside government to be given advice on
how to proceed on the UFO issue.

 >>>>" 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."
 >
 >The President could have received classified UFO info so why go
 >to an outside Congressional agency of relative weakness to beg
 >for declassification?

Again second guessing which I can't deal with. The story is that
this was the route Carter was told to take. That is what we
should try to confirm. There may have been 1,000 better ways to
do it.

<snip>

 >This makes no sense. "Major confrontation with Mr. Bush" is
 >avoided by simply waiting a few weeks for his successor, Adm.
 >Turner. It doesn't require going to a weak agency with no clout
 >in the Congress - again, the GAO had more clout than the CRS.
 >There is no mention here of Carter asking Turner for CIA info on
 >UFO's. It's given as an either/or situation. Either accept DCI
 >Bush's alleged refusal of UFO data or go the Congressional
 >route.

The "major confrontation with Bush" is Sheehan's interpetation
as he thought the question was asked after he became President.
I think the question came in the president-elect stage, so I
disagree with this interpetation. Sheehan may be able to add but
I doubt it.

Carter contacted the House Commitee on S&T not the CRS. He may
have gone to the GAO as well if we want to speculate.

 ><snip>

 >But it makes even less sense to go to a weak Congressional
 >research bureau for classified CIA data on UFO's than to go to
 >the CIA Director!

Carter went to the House, according to Sheehan's story.
Turner said he looked at the UFO situation which indicated
Carter probably went there as well.







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

                 Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:01:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:29:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com> >To: UFO UpDates -
Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com> >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars
Being Setup To Fight? >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:28:25 -0400


 >>From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com> >>To: UFO UpDates -
Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com> >>Subject: Who Is Starwars Being
Setup To Fight? >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:20:45 +0100

 >>We keep hearing talk about the so-called "Son of Star Wars".
In >>Yorkshire (North England), Menwith Hill is being modernised
and >>set up to aid in the operation of Son of Star Wars, and
there is >>talk of killer satellites, and the United States Air
Force are >>testing a 747 aircraft armed with an airborne laser
system.

 >>Not long ago I heard rumours that the U.S. Department of
Defence >>had satellites parked out in space with their
instruments >>pointing not towards earth, but outwards into deep
space.

 >>In fact I did hear that an observatory in Australia had
 >>accidently picked up one of these satellites on there
monitoring >>equipment. Much to the embarassment of the US DOD.

 >Etcetera.

 >I can't help noticing these phrases:

 >"We keep hearing talk...Not long ago I heard rumours...In fact
I >did hear..."

 >No facts. Just talk, rumors, things we hear people talking
about.

 >If we're going to be alarmed, maybe we should be alarmed about
 >things we really know for sure are happening.

 >>So with all this in mind and the persistant continuation of
the >>Starwars programme, and now we haer that the new US
Defence >>Secretary wanting to start a Space Force under the
command of >>the US Air Force, one has to ask just who the hell
is all this >>being directed against?

 >>This should be open for debate. Comments and suggestions
greatly >>appreciated.

 >To anyone who knows the right-wing politics of the Bush
 >administration, none of this is surprising. The cold war is
long >over, but still many leading members of the Republican
party in >America want to go on fighting it. They're suspicious
of Russia >and China. They worry about North Korea. The revived
talk about >the "star wars" missile defense is all about
missiles that might >be launched by "rogue states" like North
Korea.

 >The space force is most likely about the future of war, as some
 >Americans imagine it - they want to be ready for anything. It's
 >also characteristic of Republicans that they want to pump money
 >into the military. A space force would cost a lot of money.
They >imagine, to be fair, some future war in which some other
country >might have a force in space. In some ways that seems
silly - >the Russian space program doesn't seem very impressive
these >days, and China barely has one. But some of the
Republican >leaders are used to thinking of Russia and China as
deadly >enemies, and I'm sure they could even imagine weird
scenarios in >which - after some future political realignment -
we might >have to defend our satellites against Japan, or even
Europe.

 >What we have here, to summarize, is a combination of several
 >things - cold-war memories, a touch of paranoia (associated
 >with the idea of America going it alone in an increasingly
 >hostile world), a long-time habit of spending vast amounts of
 >money on the military, and an assessment (not always
 >unreasonable) of possible future threats. We don't need to
 >invoke UFOs to understand what's going on.

Cheeses, Greg... I take it you are not a Republican :) However
this began, it is not entirely the pervue of this venue to begin
a debate on American politics. Although I welcome a hearty Hi-ho
Silver, myself being of Republican leanings... actually, I am
more a Constitutional Republican myself.

Since however the battle was jerned, do you imagine that China
is not a dangerous nation, one which requires deep concern and
caution? Recent events point to this. Certainly, the Eastern way
of thinking, culture and mind set, particularly the Chinese and North
Koreans, are not to be ignored and consequently, for us to be
unprepared ... when it comes to their being a serious future danger
to this world if not this nation.

When the Chinese develope better technologies with which to
launch missiles with greater range and accuracy, when they
develope better, smaller nuclear weapons, when they become
stronger militarily, they will be a force which might very well
be the greatest danger this world has ever faced. Maybe.

When that happens, they will get their way should they choose to
act as did Hitler and the Axis powers prior to WW I. Maybe.

At the very least, America is responsible for making deadly
certain that it's people are safe from attack as well as
intimidation from unfriendlies. And that includes (in my
opinion) alien entities, as I do not see them as friendlies.


With 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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

               Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:06:39 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:32:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Strickland


 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:02:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight!

 >>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:33:33 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight!

Hi Nick, EBK, Listers,

Nick, I'm glad you followed up on EBK's 'Strange Days... Indeed'
with some comments. Nick, your statement (below) triggered a
whole bunch of back-flash memories.

<snip>

 >Prior to 1977 I think it is safe to say that biologists believed
 >all life on Earth, animal and plant, required energy from the
 >Sun. Since then, astrobiologists continue to study certain
 >plant- like tube worms found deep in our oceans that derive
 >their energy from chemosynthesis, not photosynthesis...
 >that the byproduct of chemosynthesis is sulfur and not oxygen as
 >in photosynthesis, may be a very important clue in our
 >understanding of the UFO abduction phenomena. We are aware that
 >sulfur odors are frequently reported by abductees

I suddenly remembered a derogatory comment that one of the ETs
made, something like, "She's carbon-based, what'dya expect."
Now, at the time, I was just too little to understand what he
meant. I thought he was calling me a lump of coal.

My "ET mentor" explained that most life on earth was
carbon-based, but some were silicone-based. I didn't understand,
but felt less insulted by the remark, and didn't pursue the
definition of "silicone".

I asked what was wrong with being carbon-based? He said,
"Nothing." And then I asked what he was. He said, "what do you
think?" I said, "well, you don't look like a plant, you can't be
a mineral (like a rock), so you must be animal, like me." His
answer was evasive.

I got the idea that he was part animal, part plant. I didn't
know that silicone-based animals (corals) and plants gave off a
sulfur odor. But he _definitely_ smelled like my kitty-litter
box mixed with what we used to call "the stink plant" (a weed
that grew along side nettles) near the creekbed.

At the time, the Dial soap commercial was popular..."Aren't you
glad you use Dial... don't you wish everybody did?" I sure
wished he used Dial and used to giggle when he hugged me
goodbye! Phew! I think I even told him he needed to take a
bath.

Thanks for the Memories. Some were good.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:37:20 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:36:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young


 >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
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >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.

Thank you for explaining in detail many of the reasons that
people report the Planet Venus as a UFO.

<snip>

 >Resolving the shape [of Venus} with the naked eye is impossible.

Please point to the place where this claim was ever made.

<snip>

 >More pathological science from Bob Young.

I was of the impression that you said that your degree was in
Optometry, not Psychiatry.

<snip>

 >But honestly folks -- how many of you have been "blinded" by
 >looking at the moon with the naked eye?

Thanks for creating a phony claim that I never made, then
accusing me of pathological thinking.

Please point to the place where I said that Spaur ever resolved
the shape of Venus?

You gave a very nice lecture about the various things which
could cause people to think that a bright object they are
looking at in the night sky is a little flying saucer a couple
miles away.

Happens all the time. Otherwise, we would never have any stars
and planets mistaken for saucers filled with little men.

<snip>

 >Of course, according to the debunking gospel of Bob Young, every
 >single one of the policeman suffered from an astigmatism. Yes,
 >every one.

Please point to the place where I state this. You have made this
up out of whole cloth.

 >The "astigmatism" also had the remarkable property of making
 >Venus appear in the west instead of the east at times.

Just set up some straw man like this and then throw a lot of
pseudo academic drivel from your dusty library shelves at it.
During the 80 mile chase the officers always seem to have
turned their cars toward the East and Venus.

You sound like old Doc Menzel, who is actually one of my
favorites. The direction that people think, or actually are,
looking has nothing to do with astigmatism, except as a way for
you to pad this post with more bullshit.

Why are there any IFOs which were planets or stars? According
to you there are no reasons for this.

<snip>

 >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.)

Yes, David, we already know that you took some courses on making
eyeglasses. The question is about an 80- miles chase which most
people now seem to think ended with Venus, shining nearly 100
times as bright as a first magnitude star. It's also doing so
right now in the morning sky, your use of stars seems strange,
unless it was because you were afraid to look at Venus, now at
about the same brightness as during the Ravenna event.

You seem like Spaur, himself, who later described sitting in his
patrol car another morning with the thing outside in the sky,
but he just sat there, smoking, and wouldn't look up.

Afraid of something?

Get up tomorrow morning and look at Venus in the morning sky,
David. Rotate your head, move it around, and look at the little
rays that dance and the shape of thing in the sky move with your
head. Then put yourself in Spaur's place, and imagine that you
are certain it is a 50-ft craft, probably at a couple miles
distance.

Then dream up another 1,500 words of BS to cloud theissue. But,
please list the number of reasons you can think of that might
explain the thousands of times that Venus has turned out to be
an IFO.

And then give us your estimate of the likelyhood that the Venus
that was chased later for, what 50, 70 miles, was only a mistake
and that what Spaur saw for all those miles simply looked enough
like the spaceship he had seen earlier to create the great UFO
Chase.

<snip>

 >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.

I invite all of the ladies and gentlemen (if any are still
following this) of the List to get out early before daylight
this holiday and take a look for themselves. Venus, the Queen of
UFOs, can't be missed in the East.

<snip>

 >Clear thinking and not looking up my rear end.

 >David Rudiak

Thank you ever so much for the intellectually stimulating
discussion, free of pathology of any kind.

May everyone have clear skies for the Venus Fly Trap Trick
tomorrow,


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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

                 Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:53:17 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:38:33 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:12:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 13:26:20 -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: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:18:42 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>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...

Dear Kevin, John, Everybody,

I would like to put in my 2 cents in here. 1) I think it's
admirable that Kevin stays with this list, contributing and
making comments which reflect his honest bias, because often
times his comments do, and he really doesn't try to hide his
feelings (e.g. "the _tales_ that abductees tell"). And, if I
were NOT an abductee, I'd probably be feeling, thinking and
saying the same kinds of things. Furthermore, I think that Keven
may reflect a lot of other people's feelings about these issue;
2) Betty Hill's insistence that the "modern" abduction reports
are bogus is indicative of the great reluctance even abductees
feel in trying to accept the phenomena in the first place, much
less consider the possibility that the abductors are "improving"
their abduction skills as we speak.

To give you an example, I dismissed the whole crop circle
phenomena as a hoax, never as authentic ET artwork, because when
I was being visited on a regular basis, crop circles were not
"an issue." There were not directly in my realm of ET
experience. Yet, I distinctly recall talking with "them" about
my trip to the Serpent Mound in Ohio, about the funny feeling I
had, like an electric tingling, when I was at the base of the
mound; then learning that it was one of their burial grounds (by
their admission). I have no idea if that is considered "a truth"
or not. I assume that it is considered another "theory" like the
Great Pyramid being a universal compass.

I was also _very_ skeptical of Whitley Strieber's accounts of
his experiences. I thought he had probably gone to some UFO
group therapy sessions, listened to other's stories, then
combined them all into several volumes. Why did I think that?
Because as an abductee, I'd never experienced such frequent
visits (on a daily basis). Once every month, or in the
summertime, sometimes every couple of weeks...but not every day!
Then I decided to sit down and read all of his books about his
UFO experiences. He recounted a combination of "visions"
"feelings" and "lessons" he had in their presence, which I can
identify with completely. I have felt that too. It is difficult
to express in words if you have not experienced it, but you can
recognize it when someone else tries to tell you about it. It is
not something you forget, ever.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

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

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:28:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:40:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:58:01 -0000

 >>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.

<snip>

 >>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:

Off-duty means on one's own time. I think that it is probable
that he was also on his own time. There isn't a shred of
evidence that he wasn't. According to the tale here he was in
the crowd at the site of the search. Why would he be in the
crowd with a couple military people off-duty if he was a leading
figure in the recovery of an alien spaceship? Because it is
another example of divergent information being accepted by
believers to make the stories fit.

The Kecksburg saucer crash was a meteor, it was even
photographed with a probable orbit determined. The whole
Kecksburg recovery tale surfaced years later after publicity.
It's a joke, but the joke has really been on the believers who
have messaged every story they stirred up to come up with an
exciting saucer crash and Government conspiracy tale. They, and
everybody else who has been convinced by them that they must
have really witnesses something unusual, have been taken for a
ride for twenty years by a tiny handful of jokesters who are
having a great 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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

             Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:42:24 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Tonnies


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:12:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Actually, if we return to the Hill case, we have a report of a
 >close encounter, we have Barney Hill suggesting that he had seen
 >the crew of an alien ship through his binoculars, and we have a
 >report of missing time. Given the circumstances, with the Hills
 >attempting to identify the UFO, with them stopping to examine it
 >through the binoculars, it is not unreasonable to believe that
 >their trip took longer because they were traveling slower than

If one wanted to nitpick about physical evidence, one could cite
the scuffed tips of Barney's shoes. Sure, it sounds trivial.
Nevertheless, it matches events described under hypnosis.

Also, weren't there magnetic anomalies detected on the car?

I recently read 'The Abduction Enigma' to see what the fuss was
about and didn't come away with the impression that it was a
"debunking" attempt at all. It poses some tough questions, but
never concludes that abductions simply don't happen. Rather, I
thought it was more of an attempt to seperate signal from noise.

The book never suggests that there are "satanic" elements to UFO
abductions--only that the evidential standards are similar in
many cases.

=====
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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

              CCCRN NEWS - Formation Report 2001 #4 - Etzikom,

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:31:49 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:44:14 -0400
Subject: CCCRN NEWS - Formation Report 2001 #4 - Etzikom,


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

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

July 3, 2001

_____________________________


UPDATE - FORMATION REPORT 2001 #4 - ETZIKOM, ALBERTA


Below are two news articles discussing the strange Alberta
'crater':

UFO Questions Remain
http:/www.prairie-post.com/news/062201-1.html

ET Landing in Alberta?
http://www.sightings.com/general11/LAND.HTM

Additional info and photos to follow soon.

____________________________


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:
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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

               CCCRN News: Formation Report 2001 #5 - Surrey,

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:26:15 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:45:21 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: Formation Report 2001 #5 - Surrey,


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

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

July 4, 2001

_____________________________


FORMATION REPORT 2001 #5 - SURREY, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Preliminary Report - July 4, 2001

Surrey, British Columbia
July 2, 2001


Report received from Graham Conway of UFOBC and Marius Scurtescu
of two small circles in tall wild grass In Surrey, BC, first
noticed by Marius while driving over the Port Mann Bridge on the
evening of July 2. The circles are reportedly about 2 meters (6
feet) diameter each and on a steep slope. The location is about
22 kilometers (13.5 miles) from the CCCRN office in Vancouver (I
personally won't be able to go take a look until the weekend
with my work schedule but will do! - PA).

** Just received word from David Pengilly of UFOBC who has been
out to see them and confirmed them as two small circles, in tall
grass (or possibly barley), on the hill between 152nd Street and
the bridge, with very neat, spiralled lay patterns. For this
area which over the years has had very few, sporadic reports,
even two simple circles are welcome.

Further details, photos, etc. soon.

____________________________


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:
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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:44:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:49:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:20:36 -0000

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:13:04 EDT
 >>Subject: Serious Research
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Dick:

You had previously written, regarding the Coyne helicopter case:

 >>>Unlike Klass, Jennie actually interviewed the witnesses for two
 >>>hours at the site.

 >>Unlike Ziedman, who spoke to these people three years later,
 >>Klass cited an appearance by Coyne on national television (the
 >>Dick Cavitt Show) describing the incident as lasting less than a
 >>minute, a couple weeks after the incident.

 >One is an offhand comment (if accurate in the first place), the
 >other a meticulous reconstruction of the case based on thorough
 >investigation. I guess you choose offhand comments if they
 >support your position. Have you read the Zeidman report? It is
 >readily available in many places.

An offhand comment? The pilot, himself, answered Dick Cavett's
direct question on national TV as to how long the incident
lasted.

 >Also, I suspect you are confusing a comment about how long the
 >object was engaged with the helicopter, not counting how long
it >had been visible before that, or after that.

On October 21, 1973, less than three days after the event, pilot
John Coyne was interviewed by his second cousin, a reporter for
the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The article noted the story Coyne
told to FAA officials. A red light was spotted by Crew Chief
Robert J. Yanacsek. "Seconds later, Yanacsek yelled, ' The light
is moving. It's coming at us. It's on a collision course." The
article continued, "Coyne said the strange craft hovered over
the helicopter only a few seconds... Seconds later the craft
disappeared... the story told to [by?] Coyne was verified by the
other members of the four-man crew."

The next apparent public retelling occured 12 days later when
Coyne appeared on the national Dick Cavett TV show. He retold
the story, "... my crew chief observed a light on the east
horizon... and he notified me of a bright red light on the
horizon... he stated that it looked like an obstruction light on
top of a radio tower. About a minute later he said that the red
light was pacing us... About a moment later he said he said the
light was converging on us on a collision course... And by then
- it was a matter of 10 seconds - the light was upon us, I could
see it coming. It looked like a torpedo coming at us. [Then it
was] right over us, stopped. [the trailing light] came on the
upper plixiglass and flooded the cockpit with a green light...
Everything was green in the cockpit for a couple of seconds.

"And this only existed for two or three seconds... The copilot
and flight medic observed its departure. It slowly accelerated.
It continued on a westerly heading... the green light was then
white, and on the northwest heading it did another 45 [degree]
up and off the earth."

Cavett asked if the pilot had gotten a photo and Coyne
responded, "There wasn't any time." Cavett asked, "All this
happened in how long?" "In about a minute's time," was Coyne's
answer.

The "reconstructed timeline" by Ziedman was a combination of
accounts by people who surfaces years later after an exciting
newspaper article about the incident.

 >"Testimony?" I see. Investigations don't count. They are only
 >dealing with fantasy exercises. Hmmm! By your own standards of
 >immediacy, Coyne also reported to his superiors and the news
 >media the next day that the object had a "dark hull," body
 >lights, and a dome, and that a green spotlight swivelled around
 >and beamed down into the helicopter.

He also reported that it was seen for about a minute and some
seconds. The various "details", such as a "dark hull" between
bright lights which flood the interier of the aricraft can mean
only that he imagined something between the fragments of a
meteor. The important thing about this incident is its length.
Clearly a five minute sighting would rule out a meteor,
provided, of course, that the red light which resembled a radio
tower light, seen at first, wasn't a radio tower light.

The length of time of the sighting is the key.

 >>There are now several organizations which collect reports like
 >>this, but in 1973 the AMS and the Smithsonian Astrophysical
 >>Observatory's Scientific Events Network were about it, and
 >>scattered observers for the Association of Lunar & Planetary
 >>Observers. Still, even now, few fireballs are actually reported,
 >>whether they are visible or not.

 >For a meteor watcher, this is a strangely inaccurate statement.
 >Fireballs are reported all the time. My files are bulging with
 >reports from the last few years. As it turns out, I do have the
 >AMS fireball list for 1973 in my file (I had quite candidly
 >forgotten that), and it shows no fireball on or near the date in
 >quesation. However, it includes something like 125-150 for the
 >year and about 20 for the month of October, most around the
 >Orionids shower.

Do you have the AMS data from observers in the area at the time
of the incident? If an observer were actively monitoring the sky
near Mansfield (I think a 50 mile radius would work) and saw
nothing, then it would be of interest and probably eliminate the
fireball hypothesis. However, if there were no observers active
in the area, the AMS records are not significant. I think the
AMS fireball reports were mostly (if not all) recorded by meteor
observers who report them as part of their observations. They
are not usually filed by passersby who witnessed a fireball.
This is a matter of "If a tree falls and there is nobody around
to hear it... ".

<snip>

 >Bottom line: No evidence of a fireball except for your
 >personal, strained, counter-to-fact attempt to create one out
 >of whole cloth.

Dick, for what it's worth, there was an interesting article on
Space.COM:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/nuke_meteor_010524.html

Before you counter that this was an uninhabited area, consider
that ships were present at the time (they always have someone
topside on watch) and aircraft were passing through the area. If
such a brilliant meteor could go unreported, what does it say
for a -8 to -12 meteor, about the magnitude that one commentator
has estimated could have caused Coyne event? After all it
happened near midnight when fewer people would have been out and
less likely to report.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 4

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 04:47:15 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:53:38 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:12:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 13:26:20 -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: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:18:42 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>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...

 ><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.

 >>Hello Kevin,

 >>I believe that I already responded to your question. In case it
 >>wasn't clear in my original, I don't think there are any
 >>similarities between "abduction" reports, and those of "Satanic"
 >>or "ritual" abuse. I used one of my own experiences as an
 >>example.

 >Hello, John, List -

 >I take it from your response that you don't believe there is any
 >validity to the reports of Satanic Ritual Abuse.

See Kevin, this is why we can never have a civil conversation.
In your original post you refer to abductee reports in the most
demeaning terms, ("tales of the abductees" etc.) then you try to
sell everybody the stinking fish that it was a "poor choice of
words" and "unintentional" (the old Bill Clinton, 'I smoked but
I didn't inhale excuse) and now you want to put words into my
mouth.

I never said anywhere in my posts that I "didn't believe there
was any validity to reports of Satanic ritual abuse." I have no
idea if they are valid or not. I can tell you that it doesn't
apply to the reports of UFO abduction that I cited.

How on earth can I conduct a discussion with you when you insist
on creatively rewriting my end of the conversation as you go
along. How about I just sit back and let you talk to yourself
and you can save me the wear and tear on my fingers while you
write all my responses for me.

 >I do see that
 >you don't believe there are any similarities.

One for two, I would have expected a better batting average from
a "Ph.D." ;)

 >And, I might point out that I haven't suggested that
 >Satanic Ritual Abuse in any way explains accounts of alien
 >abduction.

No, of course not. But then, why bring it up? Slow Monday? :)

 >The suggestion then, is that, in some cases, sleep paralysis is
 >the precipitating event. This is not offered as an explanation
 >for all cases of alien abduction, or even the majority, but
 >symptoms that mirror sleep paralysis do occur in, at the very
 >least, about a quarter of the reports.

You can also add kidnap, rape, and the tagging of animals in the
wild by conservationists to the list of things that "mirror" UFO
abductions.

I get a kick out of the things _you_choose_ as examples of
things that "mirror" abduction reports. I hope you get just as
big a kick out of my choices. ;)

 >>You and other "researchers" want to tackle the cases you think
 >>you can easily dismiss with 'one size fits all' explanations
 >>like "sleep paralysis" or 'Satanic/ritual' abuse etc. You won't
 >>dare go near a Betty & Barney, Debbie Jordan, or Travis Walton
 >>case with your "sleep paralysis" and "the Devil made me do it"
 >>explanations because you already know that; a. it doesn't apply
 >>in those cases, and b. because it will not explain -all- that
 >>was reported in those cases.

 >Actually, if we return to the Hill case, we have a report of a
 >close encounter, we have Barney Hill suggesting that he had seen
 >the crew of an alien ship through his binoculars, and we have a
 >report of missing time. Given the circumstances, with the Hills
 >attempting to identify the UFO, with them stopping to examine it
 >through the binoculars, it is not unreasonable to believe that
 >their trip took longer because they were traveling slower than
 >normal.

Then the sighting of the object _must have been_ caused by the
ritual Satanic abuse that both Betty and Barney suffered as
children. No wait, it was late and Barney fell asleep at the
wheel, then he had a fit of sleep paralysis which made him
hallucinate the UFO and its occupants! Yeah, that must be it!

 >And, Betty Hill remembered nothing of the abduction until she
 >began to dream about it in the days that followed. She, and
 >Barney, recalled additional details under hypnotic regression,
 >but only after the case had been investigated by UFO researchers
 >and discussed, if not between Barney and Betty, at least in
 >front of Barney. Dr. Simon, who conducted the sessions did not
 >believe that either Barney or Betty had been abducted by alien
 >creatures.

And who could be more authoritative about what actually happened
than Dr, Simon? After all, he was there when the abduction
happened right?

A degree in medicine or psychiatry does not bestow omniscience or
even common sense in an individual. In fact, some of them are
even closed minded and biased. Do you think that could have been
possible in Dr.Simon's case? ;)

 >When we strip away all the rhetoric about the Hill abduction, we
 >are left with a report with no physical evidence attached and a
 >rather dubious star map. I hesitate to mention that because I
 >know what the response will be.

Gee, considering how predictable we are, I suppose we should
feel honored that you even speak down to us. :)

 >I have read about the Fish
 >interpretation, I have read her protocols for selection of the
 >stars in her survey, and accept that they are logical, from a
 >terrestrial point of view. That doesn't make her assumptions
 >correct, or accurate, and it doesn't mean that her
 >interpretation is more accurate than the three others that I
 >have seen. And yes, I have the Astronomy magazine reprint that
 >addresses all of this and have studied it carefully. In the end,
 >however, this is an interesting part of the puzzle, but it is
 >not the physical evidence that we need.

Hang in there Kevin. One day a cigarette lighter may drop out of
a UFO and you'll finally have your "proof."

 >No one has suggested that sleep paralysis or SRA explains or
 >applies to either the Jordan case or the Walton case. Nor, has
 >anyone suggested that an explanation of some cases can be
 >translated into an explanation for all cases. However, if sleep
 >paralysis is the solution to some cases, then shouldn't it be
 >applied to those cases? Should we not remove them from the list
 >because they clutter the data base and they hide alien
 >abduction?

How about concentrating on the _hard_to_explain_ cases Kevin?
Figure out what's going on in cases where (credible) multiple
witnesses, ground trace evidence, and physical marks and scars
are involved.

Why look into the causes of tricycle snatching when you are
looking for the perpetrator of a rape?

 >I never said it did. I have suggested that we examine some of
 >these phenomena, such as sleep paralysis, to understand how it
 >might be a factor in some cases.

How about explaining how three out of four of my immediate
family members have an identical 'scoop mark' on their bodies?
How about explaining how so many other abductees have the
_same_mark_?

Kevin I've had doctors write to me after visiting my website to
ask where I got so many pictures of "punch biopsy's" when the
procedure is so rarely performed. (There are less intrusive ways
to secure tissue samples for analysis and therefore the
procedure is rarely if ever used.) They also wanted to know why
the "biopsy scars" appeared over perfectly healthy tissue. When
they are performed at all, punch biopsy's are used to sample
suspect tissue. Tissue that may be cancerous. The scoop marks on
the abductees are an 'anomaly.' And that according to five
physicians I have communicated with.

Nobody is looking into any of -that- stuff.

Did you know that I am a bona-fide medical anomaly myself?
Overnight spontaneous remission from the effects of a disease
that has no known cure. Got the lab results and doctors to prove
it. Several doctors have already told me that they've never seen
anything like it. My doctor is writing a report on my case to
the CDC in Washington. There are other abductees out there who
have also demonstrated spontaneous remissions and odd medical
anomalies.

Nobody is looking into those either.

But you go ahead. Concentrate all your energy and time on things
like sleep paralysis and ritual abuse. Your time is your own to
use or waste in any manner you wish.

 >John, I did not say that your experiences were the result of
 >sleep paralysis or that it had anything to do with SRA. I asked
 >a simple question here in an attempt to gather information and
 >learn a little more about what is going on. I asked it to the
 >list in general and didn't point it at you specifically. I'm
 >glad that you jumped in here, but remember I didn't direct
 >anything at you. I asked a question.

I never said you did. I used _myself_ as an example in order to
respond to your question. I didn't take it personally.

 >>So far, the explanation that not only 'fits' my experience to a
 >>tee, but is corroborated by many, many other individuals is that
 >>I had a run in with an Unidentified flying object, and that the
 >>occupants of the craft took me, performed some kind of
 >>medical-like procedures, and then later returned me to my home.
 >>Because that explanation is abhorrent to you intellectually does
 >>not minimize how well it explains the events that I and others
 >>have experienced.

 >John, you have asked for answers in the past. You have suggested
 >that you would like to understand what is happening to you, as
 >well as those thousands of others. To do that, we must gather as
 >much data, from as many sources, as possible. Sometimes the
 >questions might seem redundant and sometimes insensitive, but,
 >if we are all searching for the truth, wherever that truth might
 >be found, then shouldn't we ask the questions?

Again, you don't study tricycle theft to find the culprit of a
brutal rape. Sure, we can wander up every ally that we pass
along the way, or we can concentrate our energy on the more
salient manifestations of a phenomenon that potentially affects
every living ass on the planet. You don't seem to understand the
'urgency' of the situation.

It's me today Kevin , but it could be you tomorrow.

"What if" we're telling the truth? What are the real odds that
so many thousands worldwide are lying or deluded Kevin?

All it would take is -one- case being true.

 >I applaud your passion and understand your convictions, but
 >can't you see the dilemma that the rest of us face? We have very
 >little scientifically collected data and that's what we need.
 >When we go back and look at the case histories that have been
 >collected for the last thirty years (and I have collected some
 >of them myself), we see little in the way of evidence. We have,
 >I guess, in a legal phrase, the presumption of evidence. Now we
 >have to move beyond that. We must begin attempting to find that
 >evidence which was why I was interested in the Dust Bunny
 >research. Here was a way of searching for that evidence, and if
 >found, could supply us with some facts. More of this sort of
 >thing should be done, though I understand the problems here -
 >lack of finance, lack of expertise, lack of equipment and so on.
 >This is, however, where we should be going and you have to admit
 >that all the researchers are saying much the same thing.

Yeah Kevin but who is actually doing it? You? It's why I bitch
so much and try so hard. I don't see anybody _doing the work_
the way it needs to be done. Everybody can point fingers, but no
one is picking up the freaking ball and running with it. In the
meantime ordinary folks like myself continue to be ridiculed and
dismissed without a proper investigation.

 >I might add here that the Jordan case is interesting, especially
 >the physical evidence aspect of it, but that evidence was
 >gathered improperly. The skeptics can criticize the collection
 >of the evidence and point at the flaws in it. That doesn't mean
 >that we reject the evidence, only that we must be aware of the
 >problems with it, and, if aware of the problems, remedy them the
 >next time.

I won't hold my breath.

 >>The shortest distance between any two given points is a straight
 >>line. You and others insist on taking the 'scenic route.'
 >
 >But sometimes, on the scenic route, you see something that is
 >relevant... you have to look everywhere for answers.

Sure, but how about sticking to main highway before we go
exploring all the rural routes. Take on the tough cases first
Kevin. We can go back and mop up the more nebulous cases later.
There's no time to waste. I promise you that you'll kick
yourself in the ass if the truth of what we are reporting should
suddenly become common knowledge. I hope it happens within our
lifetimes. It would vindicate all the courageous souls that have
exposed themselves to the cruelest kind of ridicule and social
rejection and all for the sake of warning others. For the sake
of being responsible people.

If I saw half a million armed Chinese soldiers invading Coney
Island I would jump on my pony and warn as many people as I
could. Now substitute "aliens" for the word Chinese and you've
got the picture. No difference in the motivation.

I'm being a good soldier and reporting. I hope one day that gets
acknowledged. Not just for me, but for all of *us. (*abductees)

Regards,

John Velez


            "Nothing is at last sacred but the
              integrity of your own mind."
               www.spacelab.net/~jvif/








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

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 12:41:57 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 09:27:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Hall


 >Date: 3 Jul 2001 18:33:37 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:26:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:23:31 EDT
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks

 >>>>>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>>>>UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>>>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

 >>Well that comment at Emory seems to contradict the idea that DCI
 >>Bush refused to give him UFO information back in late 1976/early
 >>1977, since such a refusal is in effect a coverup.

 >Bush did tell him how to get the material, and it appears Carter
 >followed the suggestion. Maybe Carter was content with the
 >answers he got back. Carter told Shirley McLean that the
 >material in her book "Out on a Limb" was true, and in a related
 >rumor McLean was told by Carter the government had bodies.
 >Carter was all over the map in his statements.

Grant,

And you believe everything Shirley Maclaine says at face value?
You also seem to believe everything Sheehan says at face value.

I am deleting huge chunks here because I have no interest in
gossip, rumor, and speculation, none of which can legitimately
substitute for documentary research. (No criticism intended;
clearly you are doing documentary research, but I surely
question some of your interpretations.)

Brad Sparks said:

 >>It is certainly unusual
 >>if not slightly improper for Carter to request Executive Branch
 >>info on UFO's from the Legislative Branch instead of getting it
 >>from his branch.

 >>And the choice of the CRS is odd. CRS researches legislative
 >>issues. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA),
 >>now abolished, had the responsibility for in-depth scientific
 >>studies. If Carter wanted to put some teeth into the inquiry
 >>through the Legislative Branch he should have instigated a GAO
 >>audit - something like what happened with Roswell in 1993-4. The
 >>GAO has a huge staff of personnel with full clearances and a
 >>track record of acting aggressively to investigate and report
 >>abuses.

I agree with this; OTA would have been the logical agency to do
a scientific and technical evaluation, not CSR and not GAO which
is more into Government management issues and would logically be
involved in investigations of how the Government handled an
issue or a program.

 >The CRS did research UFO issues. That is beyond question, even if the
 >published reports seemed insignificant as Dick Hall maintains. Carter
 >could have done a lot of things, but there is not even circumstantial
 >evidence for all the hypothetical possibilities.

Obviously you haven't seen these reports or you wouldn't
continue to imply that their mere existence is somehow
significant. They are shallow political responses to an issue
that was hot at the time.

 >You have become overwhelmed by the hour and minute of the
 >question. Carter had openly discussed his sighting. He could
 >have asked the UFO question during the question period in the
 >briefing, during a washroom break. The point to establish is did
 >he ask for the UFO information, and what did Bush reply. We
 >could hash out the "when" till the cover-up ends.

 >>Did Laird tell Clinton or science advisor Dr. Jack Gibbons to
 >>ask the Congressional Research Service for UFO data? Seems more
 >>likely that a well-connected and well-informed Beltway insider
 >>such as Laird would have suggested the Congressional Office of
 >>Technology Assessment (OTA) which Gibbons had directed for 14
 >>years immediately prior to coming to the White House, since OTA
 >>would have been more appropriate for in-depth scientific
 >>analysis than the CRS. Even so, if it was an issue of getting
 >>info out of existing agencies rather than studying a technical
 >>issue, the GAO would have been the appropriate Congressional
 >>agency, assuming such an approach outside the Executive Branch
 >>was needed by Clinton.

This would be true about GAO if Government information
withholding or mismanagement were being investigated, as was the
case in GAO's Roswell investigation.

 >>But it makes even less sense to go to a weak Congressional
 >>research bureau for classified CIA data on UFO's than to go to
 >>the CIA Director!

 >Carter went to the House, according to Sheehan's story.
 >Turner said he looked at the UFO situation which indicated
 >Carter probably went there as well.

A new President who ran up against "Washington insider" politics
probably would not know how to go about getting the information
and probably would ask a lot of people in a trial and error
fashion. That's my speculation!


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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 12:12:03 +0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:55:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Lehmberg


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:19:57 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:30:23 -0000

 >>Stan,


<snip>

 >Hell, ufology itself gives them all the ammunition they need
 >not to take the subject seriously.

 >Dennis


...and how convenient for the ubiquitous "them", and the
arbitrary "they". Plainly, much more effort is expended in
looking for reasons not to investigate than is expended
otherwise <check with John Velez>, and one must measure the
magnitude of their own joyful gloat at the appearance of
convenient news regarding the folly of ufology... it may also be
the measure of ones own intellectual cowardice and a needlessly
tragic personal limitation. The unfortunate side effect is an
infectious quality of consolin


Lehmberg@snowhill.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Carey

From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:17:47 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:03:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Carey


 >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

Stan wrote:

 >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 [Anderson] passed a
 >polygraph examination.

To Stan and List:

I cannot believe that you are running Gerald Anderson up the
flagpole again. Some of us, fortunately, still remember. If you
recall, we exposed him as a hoaxer almost a decade ago. As a
result, you and Don Berliner were forced to issue a mea culpa
concerning the veracity of Anderson. It saddens me to see you
trying on this old shoe again. Must we go through the entire
litany of Anderson's fabrications once again?

 >Ace investigator Vic Golubic dug out other Plains area
 >testimony.

I have had occasion to talk to Ace Investigator Vic Golubic on
a number of occasions over the years, mostly about his efforts
to find Glenn Dennis' missing nurse. Never was able to get much
out of him though as he always would come down with a case
of the dread "Clinton's Syndrome" ["I can't recall."] whenever I
asked him for name or two. Ditto for his claims of having found
additional, corroborating sources for a 1947 Plains crash. He'd
toss out that teaser in our conversation and then "forget" who it
was that told him. He hasn't published anything on either of his
investigations [and has no plans to publish] as far as I know, so
what are we to believe from him when he refuses to provide
names to verify his claims? Fortunately, the answer to Ace's
Plains claims has come to us partly through hard work and
partly by serendipity.

On a recent research trip to NM with Don Schmitt, after spending
several days in the Plains region attempting obtain from local
ranchers information about a possible 1947 UFO crash there, we
stopped in a restaurant in Datil or Magdalena [I can't remember
which] for dinner. During our discussion, a woman came in and
overheard our conversation. She came over to our table and
started to tell us about how she had escourted this young fellow
all over the place a few years ago in a search for anyone who
might know something, anything  about an alleged 1947 UFO
crash on the Plains. I asked her if his name was Ace Investigator
Vic Golubic, and she said that it was. "How many witnesses did you
and Ace find?", I asked her. "None", was her disappointed reply.
"Did you and Ace find out ANYTHING useful?", I then asked. "No.
Nothing." The rib-eye steak was worth the price, however.

The point is, Stan, you have invoked Ace Investigator Vic Golubic
and his "other testimony" to support your case for a 1947 Plains
crash. However, you have not mentioned any new names over the
last few years, just the same old ones mentioned herein yet again.
This leads to a reasonable conclusion that the woman in the
restaurant was correct. There aren't any.

Tom Carey






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 5

              Re: ho Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Caput

From: Scott Caput <scaput@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:23:00 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:09:29 -0400
Subject: Re: ho Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Caput


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:01:07 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >Cheeses, Greg... I take it you are not a Republican :) However
 >this began, it is not entirely the pervue of this venue to begin
 >a debate on American politics. Although I welcome a hearty Hi-ho
 >Silver, myself being of Republican leanings... actually, I am
 >more a Constitutional Republican myself.

 >Since however the battle was jerned, do you imagine that China
 >is not a dangerous nation, one which requires deep concern and
 >caution? Recent events point to this. Certainly, the Eastern way
 >of thinking, culture and mind set, particularly the Chinese and North
 >Koreans, are not to be ignored and consequently, for us to be
 >unprepared ... when it comes to their being a serious future danger
 >to this world if not this nation.

 >When the Chinese develope better technologies with which to
 >launch missiles with greater range and accuracy, when they
 >develope better, smaller nuclear weapons, when they become
 >stronger militarily, they will be a force which might very well
 >be the greatest danger this world has ever faced. Maybe.

 >When that happens, they will get their way should they choose to
 >act as did Hitler and the Axis powers prior to WW I. Maybe.

 >At the very least, America is responsible for making deadly
 >certain that it's people are safe from attack as well as
 >intimidation from unfriendlies. And that includes (in my
 >opinion) alien entities, as I do not see them as friendlies.


Hello Jim and all other list members,

You make a very good point Jim. For the last few years now I
have known that China will be our next great "nemesis". My heart
is lightened by the fact that President George Bush also
realizes this. He seems to be establishing a rappor with
Alexander Putin and a sort of common thought on this subject.

As for SDI, I feel we are pretty much "there" technologically,
and for this great planet not to have some sort of defense
system is incredibly naive of us.

It's like the three little pigs saying "what wolf? I don't see
any wolf."


Scott Caput

P.S. Reagan was right, there is a bear in the woods, only it's a
Panda!









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:54:01 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:12:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Aldrich


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 12:41:57 -0000

 >>Date: 3 Jul 2001 18:33:37 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:26:12 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:23:31 EDT
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks

 >>>>>>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>>>>>UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>>>>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

 >>>Well that comment at Emory seems to contradict the idea that DCI
 >>>Bush refused to give him UFO information back in late 1976/early
 >>>1977, since such a refusal is in effect a coverup.

 >>Bush did tell him how to get the material, and it appears Carter
 >>followed the suggestion. Maybe Carter was content with the
 >>answers he got back. Carter told Shirley McLean that the
 >>material in her book "Out on a Limb" was true, and in a related
 >>rumor McLean was told by Carter the government had bodies.
 >>Carter was all over the map in his statements.

 >Grant,

 >And you believe everything Shirley Maclaine says at face value?
 >You also seem to believe everything Sheehan says at face value.

 >I am deleting huge chunks here because I have no interest in
 >gossip, rumor, and speculation, none of which can legitimately
 >substitute for documentary research. (No criticism intended;
 >clearly you are doing documentary research, but I surely
 >question some of your interpretations.)

 >Brad Sparks said:

 >>>It is certainly unusual
 >>>if not slightly improper for Carter to request Executive Branch
 >>>info on UFO's from the Legislative Branch instead of getting it
 >>>from his branch.


Just one comment here. It is more than "slightly imporper," for
the Executive Branch to intrude on the Legistlative Branch. It
is highly improper and would require that such requests go
through special channels. All branches of government are highly
jealous of their prerogatives. There are special channels for
the executive to approach other branches of government.

I think reading on the early Carter administration would show
that Carter did not hit it off with Congress. Besides, going to
the Legistlative Branch exposes the Executive to potential
embarrassment as CRS, OTA and GAO are all beholding to Congress,
not the President. This story hangs on a very weak thread if
this CRS investigation for the Executive is to be believed.

The idea of government here is rivalry for power and against the
accumuation of power by any one branch.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                  Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 12:50:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:18:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:02:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight!

 >>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:33:33 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight!

 ><snip>

 >>It's been awhile since I heard Dr. Mack speak in public.
 >>(Roswell 50th anniversary was the last time for me.) I look
 >>forward to this evening's interview. I'm certain the program
 >>will be both interesting, and informative.

 >>After Dr. Mack's interview, Errol Bruce-Knapp and co-host Scott
 >>Robbins along with regular contributors to SDI Victor Vigianni,
 >>Greg Sandow and myself will participate in a panel discussion.

 >>You can plug directly into the broadcast - thru' Windows Media
 >>Player - by going to:

 >>http://www.cfrb.com/cfrb.asx

 >Greetings John and everyone.

 >Every Saturday I look forward to my weekly fix of three hours of
 >news and comments about UFOs on Errol's 'Strange Days... Indeed'
 >radio show. Last night I listened to a special edition of 'SDI'
 >which featured Dr. John Mack and the above mentioned guests
 >including regular commentator, Dave "Furry" Furlotte (who I
 >suspect John Velez missed hearing since he had nothing to say
 >about Dave's comments that abductees should be "locked-up").

My DSL carrier was down last night so I couldn't listen in to
the interview myself. I didn't hear Furry's comment. But even if
I had, I don't think it is necessary for me to even dignify such
a thoughtless statement with a formal response. Furry isn't the
only one that thinks we're all nuts. He's just one of the few
who hold that rather extremist view, that also happens to have
access to a microphone.

He's not alone though. I _am_ a little surprised and hurt to
hear that he feels that way. I had thought better of him. It's
an ignorant and callous remark.

You live and learn.

 >P.S. John Velez will be getting microphotographs of all 51 dust
 >samples in the mail sometime after tomorrow. I would be very
 >curious to learn what he notices in these preliminary images.
 >There is one image of a dust particle that reminded me of a
 >crashed microflying saucer with three porthole windows. Like the
 >Face on Mars, maybe it was just a lighting effect, or maybe
 >not...

I'll let you and everybody know if I do find anything that
resembles the samples that Dr. Levengood claimed were anomalous.
As soon as I can I will post as much of the material as I can to
the web so folks can download the material and study it
themselves.

 >P.P.S. During last night's UFO radio show, John Velez observed
 >how the UFO abdcution phenomena takes place at night under the
 >cover of darkness. This single fact made me wonder about life
 >that does not require energy from the Sun.

Many abductions happen at night Nick but not all are restricted
to night time alone. I was just making a point about the
clandestine nature/modus operandi of the UFO occupants.

Abduction isn't all goodness and light as 'some' would have us
believe. In fact, the indications are quite the opposite. Dave
Jacobs may not be all right in his views on the phenomenon but
he isn't all wrong either. Dr. Mack has 'sublimated' much of
what has been reported to him.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                           Follow-Up On Injustice

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:53:10 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:22:10 -0400
Subject: Follow-Up On Injustice


Hi All,

Gee, I wonder how Alfred Lehmberg is doing? You remember Alfred,
he's the guy that lost his teaching job because the Thought
Nazi's he worked for considered the UFO content on his website
to be 'verbotten'.

Alfred's been composing and offering us his 'Odes' for years.
Whether you like his writing or not, I think I can safely assume
that we all love Alfred for the truly unique individual that he
is. The world would be a little gloomier and less fun without
him in it.

Yet... some SOB's come along and kick him in the nuts, and we're
all standing around allowing the bullying assault to go
unanswered. For Alfred it must be like getting your butt kicked
while all your friends stand around and watch. I'm not like that
and I never have been. What happens to my friends happens to me.

Alfred, I haven't forgotten you bro. If I can help by writing a
letter of protest to your local Board of Ed., or something to
help, please let me know. As an American I am incensed that you
could be fired for the UFO content on your website. On your word
I will protest loudly to the Thought Nazi's that deprived you of
your Rights and your livelihood.

"If you go, I go!"

Regards, my support (in any way) is yours for the asking.
And, I haven't forgotten you.  ;)


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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

              Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Stacy

From: "Dennis Stacy" <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:31:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:26:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Stacy


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:01:07 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >When the Chinese develope better technologies with which to
 >launch missiles with greater range and accuracy, when they
 >develope better, smaller nuclear weapons, when they become
 >stronger militarily, they will be a force which might very well
 >be the greatest danger this world has ever faced. Maybe.

 >When that happens, they will get their way should they choose to
 >act as did Hitler and the Axis powers prior to WW I. Maybe.

 >At the very least, America is responsible for making deadly
 >certain that it's people are safe from attack as well as
 >intimidation from unfriendlies. And that includes (in my
 >opinion) alien entities, as I do not see them as friendlies.


Jim,

If and when we deploy a missile shield (that probably won't work
anyway), we almost ensure that the Chinese will build more ICBMs
with more warheads (or a mixture of warheads & decoys) on each
one.

Sounds like a smart move to me!

On the other hand, if Star Wars is aimed at aliens, wouldn't it
make sense to enlist the help of the Soviets, Chinese and Europe
in the building of same, if only to share the costs? (Much like
we're doing with the International Space Station now.)

After all, all we'd have to do would be to show their leaders
one of those bodies we've got on ice at Wright-Pat, and I think
they'd sign on pretty damn quick. (Wouldn't you?)

Uh, we _do_ have bodies on ice, don't we?

Come to think of it, if we've had alien cadavers in our
possession ever since 1947, it kinda makes you wonder why we
spent half a century's worth of money and lives on the Cold War
in the first place.

Don't it?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

               Scanner Info For FAA/Airport/Aircraft Comms. -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 17:09:27 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:28:35 -0400
Subject: Scanner Info For FAA/Airport/Aircraft Comms. -


Anyone interested in the information on how to tune in to
aircracft communications, please send me on offlist mail and I
will forward the information. The information may be a bit
lengthy for UpDates.

Send your requests to:  ConsultTCG@AOL.COM

I will send a bulk mail to those on the list.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:15:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:30:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >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.

Kevin,

Yes and you're both wrong and not only that, you both refuse to
examine any evidence that might get you both to change your
collective opinions.

All I wanted from you was information concerning the dates of
May 29, 30, 31, and June 1, 2, from Barney's wife's diary. I
thought it was a simple request but you refused to help. Why?

There were probably two crashes (Roswell events) but three crash
sites.

The one in late May and early June that the cameraman filmed was
the one on the plains.

The second crash happened on the night of the 2nd of July and
the debris and bodies were removed on the night of the 3rd and
early AM of the 4th of July. That crash resulted in the debris
found on the Brazel ranch three days later, and is the crash in
which the MP participated. From his description of his drive to
the site, the location of that crash was probably somewhere in
the White Mountain region.

The May crash may be the one that Barney observed.

I was just curious about where he was on those days.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                            Mars Patrol 07-01-01

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 17:05:42 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:57:42 -0400
Subject: Mars Patrol 07-01-01


Hello, all.

After reading Mr. Young's and Mr. Rudiak's discussion of
Ravenna, 1966, I'd like a little input. I haven't reported this
to NUFORC yet, but I'd like a little input on what I possibly
saw this last July 1st at 10:02 PM.

I have been following the opposition of Mars in what I have that
passes for a Telescope currently (a celestron C-90) and a
little Lunar observing. I am aware of the current position of
Venus by the way (I have never, ever, have mistaken a star for
something other than a star, and even a planet that thought it
could hide as a star. <G>) What I saw was an apparent large,
well, craft, It had a configuration like this :

        pulsing  white light   -- >   *
                                 0------------------------0 <-----Big, yellow
lights.
                                                   *<---Red. slow, strobe

                                                  0 <----Another, big yellow
light.


Yes, a freakin' triangle, slow enough to get a look, but too far
away to get a relationship of size, except Mars, it appeared
solid, but  again little in the way of configuration that was
telling. _Know_ my Aircraft, and the position lights, strobes,
etc. I have never seen anything like this, ever. It was moving
away from my position, and I first saw it at about 35 deg. above
the S.E. horizon it moved across my field of sight,to the S.SW.
and passed Mars! giving me a good look at the configuration, it
then turned, without banking, like a conventional aircraft, as
it passed Mars.

As it turned, I could no longer see the front light, but the two
yellow lights and the, for lack of a better word, rotating
beacons. I could see clearly. I followed it until I lost sight
of it in the haze of the Horizon, making me think that it might
have been quite high.

I have no idea what it was, but it was definitely something
solid. Any suggestions?

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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

             Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:44:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:59:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sandow


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:01:07 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Cheeses, Greg... I take it you are not a Republican :)

You got that right!

 >Since however the battle was jerned, do you imagine that China
 >is not a dangerous nation, one which requires deep concern and
 >caution? Recent events point to this. Certainly, the
 >Eastern way
 >of thinking, culture and mind set, particularly the
 >Chinese and North
 >Koreans, are not to be ignored and consequently, for us to be
 >unprepared ... when it comes to their being a serious
 >future danger
 >to this world if not this nation.

Don't know about that "Eastern mind set" -- wouldn't our South
Korean friends have it, too?

But I never said there weren't real dangers. As an aside, I
might add that I'm morbidly fascinated with the North Korean
regime, which may well be the most odious government on earth.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

              Cydonian Imperative: 07-05-01 - Possible Hexagon

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 22:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:01:48 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 07-05-01 - Possible Hexagon


The Cydonian Imperative
07-05-01

Possible Hexagon Near "Eye"
by Mac Tonnies

See:

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

[image]

Chris Joseph has outlined the feature above, which appears as an
intact hexagon near the center of the "disk" identified on the
previous page. This is a significant find, given the
predominance of hexagonal formations on the Martian surface.
Additionally, Mark Kelly and Chris Joseph have detected two more
hexagons in Cydonia, both north of the Face (see future
installments).

If the apparant hexagons are "real," as they appear to be, could
they be remnants of technological structures such as phased
array telescopes or solar power stations? Or could the newly
discovered hexagon on the Face be a decorative element, similar
to a bas relief?


The radial cells described in the previous article suggest a
functional interpretation for the western "eye." (Rather than a
single anomolous "bump," the "eye" seems to be a virtual complex
of complementary anomalies.) The "disk" above the "eye" features
a fine-scale chaotic texture lacking on other exposed surfaces
on the Face's western half, suggesting now-vanished design
elements. It's possible that the hexagon and radial cells served
similar functions, if we are in fact looking at the remains of
an "observatory" or power station of some kind. Only future
images and exploration can settle this matter.

There is no doubt that erosion has taken an extreme toll on the
Face formation. But there remain enough geometric peculiarities
to warrant methodical study. Most interestingly, these
peculiarities seem interrelated: an indication of conscious
design as opposed to blind natural forces. Determining the
purpose of these apparent structures will allow us to address
the nature of the Face's hypothetical creators with lucidity and
scientific restraint.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                   Re: erious Research/Coyne Case - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 04:24:57 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:17:39 -0400
Subject: Re: erious Research/Coyne Case - Sparks


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:44:45 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:20:36 -0000

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:13:04 EDT
 >>>Subject: Serious Research
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Dick:

 >You had previously written, regarding the Coyne helicopter case:

 >>>>Unlike Klass, Jennie actually interviewed the witnesses for two
 >>>>hours at the site.

 >>>Unlike Ziedman, who spoke to these people three years later,
 >>>Klass cited an appearance by Coyne on national television (the
 >>>Dick Cavitt Show) describing the incident as lasting less than a
 >>>minute, a couple weeks after the incident.

Hi Bob,

Well you've just proved Klass' statement wrong by quoting
verbatim the actual summary statement by Coyne on the Cavett
show (below) as "about a minute's time" _NOT_ "less than a
minute," and you've quoted Coyne's detailed breakdown which
contradict and overrule his casual overall figure, as I will
show below.

 >>One is an offhand comment (if accurate in the first place), the
 >>other a meticulous reconstruction of the case based on thorough
 >>investigation. I guess you choose offhand comments if they
 >>support your position. Have you read the Zeidman report? It is
 >>readily available in many places.

Dick Hall is exactly correct here and it is patently obvious
from reading your Cavett transcript excerpts. Coyne went through
a detailed breakdown of the sighting phases but when he
offhandedly summarized the time he didn't add up all the
figures. He wasn't complete either, as I will demonstrate below.

 >An offhand comment? The pilot, himself, answered Dick Cavett's
 >direct question on national TV as to how long the incident
 >lasted.

 >>Also, I suspect you are confusing a comment about how long the
 >>object was engaged with the helicopter, not counting how long
 >>it had been visible before that, or after that.

 >On October 21, 1973, less than three days after the event, pilot
 >John Coyne was interviewed by his second cousin, a reporter for
 >the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The article noted the story Coyne
 >told to FAA officials. A red light was spotted by Crew Chief
 >Robert J. Yanacsek. "Seconds later, Yanacsek yelled, ' The light
 >is moving. It's coming at us. It's on a collision course." The
 >article continued, "Coyne said the strange craft hovered over
 >the helicopter only a few seconds... Seconds later the craft
 >disappeared... the story told to [by?] Coyne was verified by the
 >other members of the four-man crew."

I don't know how accurate this newspaper article may be if it
mistakes Coyne's name as "John" when it was Lawrence Coyne, and
it is contradicted by the presumably accurate taped quotes from
the Cavett show (next).

 >The next apparent public retelling occured 12 days later when
 >Coyne appeared on the national Dick Cavett TV show. He retold
 >the story, "... my crew chief observed a light on the east
 >horizon... and he notified me of a bright red light on the
 >horizon...

According to Jennie Zeidman's interviewing, flight medic Healey
noticed the red light in the distance for about 2 minutes before
crew chief Yanacsek noticed it. Then Yanacsek observed it for
about 60-90 seconds before notifying pilot Coyne. Coyne has no
time estimate on the Cavett show here for this early phase of
the UFO sighting.

 >he stated that it looked like an obstruction light on
 >top of a radio tower. About a minute later he said that the red
 >light was pacing us...

This approximate 1 minute estimate of time from notifying Coyne
till the UFO started pacing is actually _double_ the 30-second
estimate given by Zeidman which includes both this pre-pacing
period plus the ensuing pacing time till the converging course
was noticed (next).

 >About a moment later he said he said the
 >light was converging on us on a collision course...

Since there can hardly be any such thing as an approximate
"moment" or instant this sounds like Coyne misspoke and meant to
say "About a minute later" since pacing would have to be noticed
over an extended period of time. So far we have about 2 minutes
indicated in the Cavett interview alone, not including preceding
time Coyne mentions but does not estimate.

 >And by then
 >- it was a matter of 10 seconds - the light was upon us, I could
 >see it coming. It looked like a torpedo coming at us. [Then it
 >was] right over us, stopped.

Now there is 10 seconds for the converging approach (when Coyne
dove the helicopter to avoid collision) and then an unstated
"stopped" period, according to these Cavett show excerpts.
Zeidman has a 10-12-second estimate from Yanacsek for the
stopping/hovering period.

 >[the trailing light] came on the
 >upper plixiglass and flooded the cockpit with a green light...
 >Everything was green in the cockpit for a couple of seconds.
 >"And this only existed for two or three seconds...

The green light phase was a subset of the longer
stopped/hovering period so these 2-3 seconds are consistent with
being a subset of 10-12 seconds of hovering.

 >The copilot
 >and flight medic observed its departure. It slowly accelerated.
 >It continued on a westerly heading... the green light was then
 >white, and on the northwest heading it did another 45 [degree]
 >up and off the earth."

So there is an acceleration phase and then a 45-degree turn
phase, both periods unstated by Coyne on the Cavett show. By
this point we have a total of about 2 minutes 10 seconds implied
from the Cavett show alone.

If we add the estimates from Zeidman's research before and after
we get a total of about 7-8 minutes:

Healey first sights UFO: 2 mins
Yanacsek sees UFO: 1-1.5 mins
Yanacsek notififies Coyne, watches: 1 min
Yanacsek notifies Coyne of pacing by UFO, watches the pacing: 1 min
Convergin until stopping: 10 secs
Stopping/hovering: 10-12 secs
Departure acceleration & 45-deg turn till disappears: 2 mins

TOTAL: 7 mins 20 secs to 7 mins 52 secs

The Cavett show implies at least 2 mins 10 secs, in comparison,
and is clearly incomplete because it omits estimates from
periods before and after.

 >Cavett asked if the pilot had gotten a photo and Coyne
 >responded, "There wasn't any time." Cavett asked, "All this
 >happened in how long?" "In about a minute's time," was Coyne's
 >answer.

 From the context Coyne may simply have been estimating how long
a good photo could have been obtained, so that "about a minute"
was not meant to be the total duration but only the period of
closest distance.


Brad Sparks








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 06:17:23 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:20:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Sparks


 >Date: 3 Jul 2001 18:33:37 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:26:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:23:31 EDT
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks

 >>>>>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>>>>UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>>>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

 >><snip>

 >>Well that comment at Emory seems to contradict the idea that DCI
 >>Bush refused to give him UFO information back in late 1976/early
 >>1977, since such a refusal is in effect a coverup.

 >Bush did tell him how to get the material, and it appears Carter
 >followed the suggestion. Maybe Carter was content with the
 >answers he got back. Carter told Shirley McLean that the
 >material in her book "Out on a Limb" was true, and in a related
 >rumor McLean was told by Carter the government had bodies.
 >Carter was all over the map in his statements.

 >Carter maintained he had never said the words attributed to him
 >in the 1976 Enquirer article.( releasing everything on UFOs if
 >he became President) Yet researchers in Wisconsin have Carter
 >quoted in March 1976 saying something pretty close.

 >Maybe - if we want to speculate Carter found out the truth.
 >There are no UFOs, and we are all wasting our time. Anything is
 >possible.

Grant,

As you say Carter was all over the map on his statements so who
knows?

But I am unconvinced about Daniel Sheehan's story. Why would
Carter or his staff confide in Marcia Smith of the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) that he had been stonewalled by CIA
Director George Bush on releasing CIA's UFO data? This was a
politically damaging admission and one that an incoming new
administration would want to avoid in order to land on its feet
running, not stumbling. Why would Marcia Smith blab to Sheehan
- whom she didn't know or have a trust relationship built up
this politically senitive story of DCI Bush stonewalling
President-elect Carter on UFO's? Shouldn't others have heard
this story if it was so freely revealed?

 >>><snip>

 >>This is not quite correct. DCI Bush met with Carter again for
 >>the 5th time on Dec 9, 1976, for a 20-minute briefing in the
 >>middle of a larger briefing by CIA staff. So there were two Bush
 >>briefings of Carter while he was President-elect, not one.

 >We are wading into the "impossible to prove." Possibilities also
 >exist they met secretly, discussed it on the phone, or a whole
 >host of other possibilities.The point is that at some point
 >according to the Sheehan story Carter asked Bush as President
 >for information on UFOs. Sheehan, for example, thought it had
 >occured after Carter became President which is impossible.

The problem with the private 45-minute session between Carter
and Bush on Nov 19, 1976, is that Bush denies that Carter asked
him a single question or asked for any followup action or
information on anything and that Bush had to stress to Carter
that if he wanted info he could contact CIA. This contradicts
the idea that this is when Bush stonewalled Carter on UFO info
and told Carter to get CIA docs declassified by going to the
House / CRS.

 >Marcia Smith may know when it was, Carter will know, and the
 >Disney people who put out a documentary in 1995 may know. In it
 >they stated "When [Jimmy Carter] assumed the office of President
 >of the United States, his staff attempted to explore the
 >availability of official investigations into alien contact. As
 >this internal government memo illustrates, there are some
 >security secrets outside the jurisdiction of the White House."

Does this internal memo say anything about Bush stonewalling
Carter on CIA info on UFO's?

 >The when is not critical to the story.

The date and timing are important in investigating and
evaluating Sheehan's story. You have already established at
least one error in Sheehan's account that Bush could not
possibly have been CIA Director when Carter was President (he
resigned first) so Sheehan has the date wrong.

 ><snip>

 >>It makes better sense that Carter might have asked _both_ DCI
 >>Bush then DCI Turner. But it doesn't make sense that an almost
 >>embarrassing request outside the Executive Branch to the
 >>Congressional Research Service can at all be considered "the
 >>correct procedure" for "getting the information." Carter as
 >>President headed the Executive Branch. It is certainly unusual
 >>if not slightly improper for Carter to request Executive Branch
 >>info on UFO's from the Legislative Branch instead of getting it
 >>from his branch.

 >>And the choice of the CRS is odd. CRS researches legislative
 >>issues. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA),
 >>now abolished, had the responsibility for in-depth scientific
 >>studies. If Carter wanted to put some teeth into the inquiry
 >>through the Legislative Branch he should have instigated a GAO
 >>audit - something like what happened with Roswell in 1993-4. The
 >>GAO has a huge staff of personnel with full clearances and a
 >>track record of acting aggressively to investigate and report
 >>abuses.

 >The CRS did research UFO issues. That is beyond question, even if the
 >published reports seemed insignificant as Dick Hall maintains.

But CRS did not request any agency to _"declassify"_ UFO
documents for its studies. Sheehan's story was that Carter was
told to arrnge for the CRS to request CIA to declassify UFO
documents. In fact I'd be surprised if the CRS has ever
requested declassification of any documents on any subject. As a
Washington insider with top-level experience in intelligence and
security matters Bush as CIA Director would know the CRS did not
do that kind of thing, request declassification of government
records.

 >Carter
 >could have done a lot of things, but there is not even circumstantial
 >evidence for all the hypothetical possibilities.

If the story has to be expanded to encompass the idea that
Carter was trying a shotgun approach to getting UFO data
released in order to explain why a weak Congressional agency
such as the CRS was supposedly used (i.e., that it was just one
among many agencies/channels used), then we have to ask why the
shotgun approach didn't also include more powerful and effective
Congressional agencies such as GAO and OTA. If the request,
according to Sheehan, was processed through the House S&T
Committee, then the Committee certainly would know the political
and organizational realities of its own Congressional support
agencies and would know that the GAO and OTA were the best
suited agencies for a CIA-document declassification request, not
the CRS.

The mid-70's saw the CIA rocked by scandals, revelations and
Congressional and media investigations. Sheehan certainly knew
what was going on in that respect from his own crusading role.
How come he didn't find it suspicious or strange that Carter's
request wasn't guided or funneled to the Senate Intelligence
Committee that succeeded the Church Committee, which certainly
had more clout than the CRS and had actual experience with
prying loose classified documents from the CIA? The Church
Committee investigations of the CIA were famous and well known
in that time frame. I'm not asking why Carter didn't think of
it, nor why Bush didn't mention it (reasons can be imagined),
but why Sheehan didn't think of it and why he didn't suggest it
to Marcia Smith of the CRS. Sheehan's role sounds very inert,
lifeless and one-directional, he seems to have asked no
questions of Marcia Smith either. Didn't he have any Washington
politico-type response to this bizarre request and story?
Sheehan just does what he's told by Marcia Smith and has no
suggestions in return about using the Senate Intelligence
Committee or the GAO or whatever? Sheehan doesn't ask why Carter
didn't simply get the UFO info from his own CIA Director Turner?
This just doesn't sound credible.

What seems more likely is that Sheehan has over the course of
time seriously misremembered events and got them jumbled in his
mind. I would suggest that maybe Sheehan was asked for Vatican
UFO data by Marcia Smith of the CRS in 1976-7 and that around
that time he heard rumors about Carter trying to release UFO
data and he put the two together, making Marcia Smith the source
of the story of Carter getting stonewalled, and Sheehan has
"interpreted" events (to paraphrase you later on) to explain
Marcia Smith's UFO involvement as connected to the Carter
inquiry when it was not connected. From 25 years later it might
look simultaneous. Or maybe Marcia Smith passed on a Washington
rumor about Carter and Bush and Sheehan thought decades later
that it was an explanation for her involvement with the UFO
inquiry.

 ><snip>

 >>But I think you're missing the point: Carter didn't ask for the
 >>meeting which became a briefing. Bush did. Surely Bush wasn't
 >>trying to force UFO info on Carter was he? On Nov 5, 1976, DCI
 >>Bush phoned asking for the meeting with Carter to discuss
 >>"exotic and very closely held items relating to sources and
 >>methods." This phrase couldn't relate to Carter's request for
 >>UFO data, since it was Bush's request. It is tempting to try to
 >>see "exotic" as a euphemism for UFO's but it would indicate Bush
 >>wanted to tell Carter about the "exotic" subject of UFO's if
 >>that's the case. That would contradict Sheehan's story that Bush
 >>had refused Carter's request for UFO data.

 >You have become overwhelmed by the hour and minute of the
 >question. Carter had openly discussed his sighting. He could
 >have asked the UFO question during the question period in the
 >briefing, during a washroom break.

But according to Bush there was "no question" period in the
45-minute private briefing, Carter asked for "no followup action
or information" and Bush had to suggest Carter "contact CIA" for
any information he needed.

 >The point to establish is did
 >he ask for the UFO information, and what did Bush reply. We
 >could hash out the "when" till the cover-up ends.

The "when" gives us important data for trying to establish
whether it happened or not. The more vague the time period the
more difficult to check records.

 ><snip>

 >>Did Laird tell Clinton or science advisor Dr. Jack Gibbons to
 >>ask the Congressional Research Service for UFO data? Seems more
 >>likely that a well-connected and well-informed Beltway insider
 >>such as Laird would have suggested the Congressional Office of
 >>Technology Assessment (OTA) which Gibbons had directed for 14
 >>years immediately prior to coming to the White House, since OTA
 >>would have been more appropriate for in-depth scientific
 >>analysis than the CRS. Even so, if it was an issue of getting
 >>info out of existing agencies rather than studying a technical
 >>issue, the GAO would have been the appropriate Congressional
 >>agency, assuming such an approach outside the Executive Branch
 >>was needed by Clinton.

<snip>

 >>>>>" 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."

 >>The President could have received classified UFO info so why go
 >>to an outside Congressional agency of relative weakness to beg
 >>for declassification?

 >Again second guessing which I can't deal with. The story is that
 >this was the route Carter was told to take. That is what we
 >should try to confirm. There may have been 1,000 better ways to
 >do it.

There were also many people allegedly involved who could have
explained these 1,000 better ways at the time and had every
motivation to do so, i.e., House Democrats and staff that would
do anything to help the first Democrat President in the White
House in nearly a decade and would try to steer him away from
taking weak and ineffectual routes such as the CRS. This is not
second guessing but the political realities of the time.

 ><snip>

 >>This makes no sense. "Major confrontation with Mr. Bush" is
 >>avoided by simply waiting a few weeks for his successor, Adm.
 >>Turner. It doesn't require going to a weak agency with no clout
 >>in the Congress - again, the GAO had more clout than the CRS.
 >>There is no mention here of Carter asking Turner for CIA info on
 >>UFO's. It's given as an either/or situation. Either accept DCI
 >>Bush's alleged refusal of UFO data or go the Congressional
 >>route.

 >The "major confrontation with Bush" is Sheehan's interpetation
 >as he thought the question was asked after he became President.
 >I think the question came in the president-elect stage, so I
 >disagree with this interpetation. Sheehan may be able to add but
 >I doubt it.

This is a second error in Sheehan's account that you have
pointed out besides his date discrepancy (i.e., that Carter
could not have been President yet). It leads us to wonder how
much "interpretation" and reconstruction Sheehan has had to do
from his memory without any notes or records to help him.

 >Carter contacted the House Commitee on S&T not the CRS. He may
 >have gone to the GAO as well if we want to speculate.

Again my point is why wouldn't the House Committee on S&T tell
Carter to go to the GAO and/or OTA instead of the relatively
weaker CRS? Certainly the House knew which of its Congressional
agencies was most suited for the task of trying to get CIA UFO
documents declassified and that it wouldn't be a librarian-like
CRS that compiled bibliographies and had little or no experience
in investigations and security procedures. House was then under
the control of the same political party as Carter's and was
certainly going to try to do whatever it could to help its
political leader now that the party had recaptured the White
House for the first time in a decade. The House wouldn't steer
Carter to a deadend like the CRS. This is not speculation but
well-known cold, hard political facts.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 5 Jul 2001 05:26:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:24:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 12:41:57 -0000

 >>Date: 3 Jul 2001 18:33:37 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:26:12 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:23:31 EDT
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks

 >>>>>>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>>>>>UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>>>>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

<snip>

 >And you believe everything Shirley Maclaine says at face value?

When she answers a question about her friend Jimmy Carter on
Larry King I think it is worth future investigation. The
question put to her by a listener involved an even wilder story
about her and Carter which she denied.

 >You also seem to believe everything Sheehan says at face value.

It is also worth future investigation. I have spent a lot of
time on it and found nothing inconsistant in the many times he
has  told the story.

<snip>

 >>The CRS did research UFO issues. That is beyond question, even
 >>if the published reports seemed insignificant as Dick Hall
 >>maintains. Carter could have done a lot of things, but there
 >>is not even circumstantial evidence for all the hypothetical
 >>possibilities.

 >Obviously you haven't seen these reports or you wouldn't
 >continue to imply that their mere existence is somehow
 >significant. They are shallow political responses to an issue
 >that was hot at the time.

I have seen them all. The entire Sheehan incident with Rosemary
Chalk at the National Science Foundation and Marcia Smith takes
place in 1977.  The two reports (one on UFOs and on on ETI) were
completed in the same year. Could you give me the publication date
of the "insignificant" report you are referring to?

<snip>

 >>>Did Laird tell Clinton or science advisor Dr. Jack Gibbons to
 >>>ask the Congressional Research Service for UFO data? Seems more
 >>>likely that a well-connected and well-informed Beltway insider
 >>>such as Laird would have suggested the Congressional Office of
 >>>Technology Assessment (OTA) which Gibbons had directed for 14
 >>>years immediately prior to coming to the White House, since OTA
 >>>would have been more appropriate for in-depth scientific
 >>>analysis than the CRS. Even so, if it was an issue of getting
 >>>info out of existing agencies rather than studying a technical
 >>>issue, the GAO would have been the appropriate Congressional
 >>>agency, assuming such an approach outside the Executive Branch
 >>>was needed by Clinton.

The Laird letters combined with some of the Rockefeller letters
to Gibbons indicate Laird thought the only solution was action
by the President to change the rules on secrecy and
declassification. Some of the writing even hint that Rockefeller
thought the 1995 efforts by Clinton to rewrite the rules about
document declassification were at part in response to his
pressure for release of the UFO information.

<snip>

Grant

"Whatever statement you saw concerning President Carter's view
on UFOs was not exactly what he said. He had seen something that
he thought was unexplainable that possibly might have been a UFO
and he will certainly disclose and describe any unusual
phenomena he might see. He is committed to the fullest possible
openness in government and would support full disclosure of
material that was not defense sensitive that might relate to
UFOs. He did not, however, pledge to "make every piece of
information concerning the UFOs available to the public." There
might be some aspects of some sightings that would have defense
implications that possibly should be safe guarded against
immediate and full disclosure."

                 -- Walter Wurfel, Carter Deputy Press Secretary
                                               February 28, 1977










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 5

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

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 5 Jul 2001 05:38:31 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:27:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Cameron


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:28:07 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:58:01 -0000

 >>>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>

 >Off-duty means on one's own time. I think that it is probable
 >that he was also on his own time.

Off-duty referred to the military people. Walker was on salary
at Penn State and was always on duty. His job at Penn State had
nothing to do with UFOs.

 >There isn't a shred of
 >evidence that he wasn't. According to the tale here he was in
 >the crowd at the site of the search. Why would he be in the
 >crowd with a couple military people off-duty if he was a leading
 >figure in the recovery of an alien spaceship? Because it is
 >another example of divergent information being accepted by
 >believers to make the stories fit.

Walker would have been behind the lines, not in the crowd. His
involvement with UFOs was not made public till 1990 when our
book "UFOs, MJ-12, and the Government" was published. In 1965 no
one would have known him from Adam.

 >The Kecksburg saucer crash was a meteor, it was even
 >photographed with a probable orbit determined. The whole
 >Kecksburg recovery tale surfaced years later after publicity.
 >It's a joke, but the joke has really been on the believers who
 >have messaged every story they stirred up to come up with an
 >exciting saucer crash and Government conspiracy tale. They, and
 >everybody else who has been convinced by them that they must
 >have really witnesses something unusual, have been taken for a
 >ride for twenty years by a tiny handful of jokesters who are
 >having a great time.

Oberg said it was a Russian space vehicle. You guys should get
your horses all running in the same direction. Walker refused to
educate us on either meteors or Russian spacecraft when asked
what is was.

Grant









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                    '2001' Actor at Roswell UFO Festival

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:42:22 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:44:58 -0400
Subject: '2001' Actor at Roswell UFO Festival


'2001' Actor at Roswell UFO Festival


.c The Associated Press


ROSWELL, N.M. (AP) - In '2001: A Space Odyssey', an
authoritarian computer named HAL hurtles actor Gary Lockwood
into deep space. He lands this week in Roswell, N.M.

Lockwood is scheduled to appear at this southern New Mexican
town's annual UFO Festival, which marks a purported crash of a
UFO in 1947 known as the Roswell Incident.

Making the 1968 Stanley Kubrick film the theme of this year's
event, organizers hope to capitalize on the year to attract up
to 15,000 people.

They also hope to broaden the festival by adding more
down-to-earth activities, like a concert by a band called the
Little Green Men, an alien parade, a costume contest and an
'Alien Chase' run. Even a Miss UFO Festival beauty queen will
make several appearances at the four-day festival that starts
Thursday.

Cory Beck, publisher of the Roswell Daily Record, said "without
a doubt" 2001 should provide a larger draw than in recent
years.

"It's the whole UFO-space-science-fiction thing", he said.

"2001 is such a milepost, first with Arthur C. Clarke's book and
then the Kubrick movie. People kind of attach a lot of
importance to it."

AP-NY-07-05-01 0852EDT

Copyright 2001 The Associated Press.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                          Sheehan @ MUFON Symposium

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 5 Jul 2001 08:51:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:54:46 -0400
Subject: Sheehan @ MUFON Symposium


"The time has come for the UFO community to gather ourselves
together in an intelligent responsible manner, and to say -
those questions need to be answered. They don't need to be
speculated about... but there needs to be a full scale
professional intelligent investigation undertaken.

Now people are going to say "You're not going to find anything
out. " Let me stand here and assure you that you can. People
never thought that we could find out they were smuggling bomb
grade plutonium out of the Kerr-McGee Nuclear facility to Israel
and Iran and South Africa, but we did. People didn't believe
that we could find out that the Reagan administration was
definitely shipped military equipment to the Contras... but we
absolutely did. The fact of the matter is where there is the
will within a collective public interest community, and a
focused resolve to find the answer to these questions - this in
fact can be done. Once we have the answers to these questions we
can begin to move in a unified way to reach out to the rest of
the citizens of our country to mobilize a major movement and get
something done about this....."


Daniel Sheehan, at the MUFON-LA meeting June 20, 2001 discussing
the importance of answers to the UFO question at this point in
history. The lecture is one of many Sheehan has given discussing
his involvement during the Carter administration. Audio of the
presentation can be found at:

http://www.mufonla.com/sheehan.ram

Anyone with a "fact" question for Daniel Sheehan about his brief
involvement with UFOs related to the Carter administration,
please e-mail them to me. With the cooperation of Don Waldrop at
MUFON Los Angeles, we will make sure the questions are seen by
Daniel Sheehan when he speaks later this month at the MUFON
symposium.


Grant 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 >
   Jul > Jul 5

               Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:32:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 22:17:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Date: 2 Jul 2001 18:11:20 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 ><snip>

 >>Witnesses have told me that sliding their hand over the outside
 >>surface of a UFO felt like gliding over a film of soap. Another
 >>clue. Distilling all the clues from witness data alone can lead
 >>to attempts at reverse engineering in my opinion.

Hiya Bill, hi Mac, All,

Mac writes:

 >I agree. There are other aspects to close encounters that lend
 >themselves nicely to nanotech interpretations, such as the
 >often-reported "uniformly lit, seamless walls" described by
 >abductees. UFOs themselves are very rarely described as having
 >"rivets," and more often than not, doors which open cannot be
 >discerned once closed, as if the seam is molecular.

I have reports of the same details (that Mac lists above) in
letters that abductees have sent to me over the years. (from all
around the world) Although what I'm about to say is information
that came up during a hypnosis session with Budd, it does
corroborate Mac's statements.

Narrative from hypnosis session:

I am floating up towards the bottom of a large silver disc. I am
accompanied by two small grey aliens. The object appears to be
'glowing' (as if the light was radiating _through_ the silver
metal surface... from inside.)

When we were in close proximity to the craft I started to worry
that we were not going to stop in time to avoid smashing our
heads into it. Just then a 'line' appears (on the perfectly
smooth metal) and opens up into a rectangular portal large
enough to accommodate us.

As I was approaching the disc there was no visual sign of a
"line" or any door. The surface had been smooth.

 >If some UFOs are in fact ET craft, then I predict they're more
 >"grown" more than "built."

I agree Mac. It's _pure speculation_ on my part but: I "think"
UFOs are part machine, part biological, and a form of artificial
intelligence that can be controlled/interacted with, using the
electromagnetic waves/thoughts of the operators brain.
(Telepathically responsive and controlled.) Movement at the
"speed of thought" would explain the bizarre instantaneous
acceleration, turns, leaps, and appearing to 'disappear' on the
spot (only to instantaneously appear in another part of the
sky,) that UFOs demonstrate.

*Please, it's all just speculation on my part. Don't ask me to
"prove" any of it. I offer it up here in the spirit of the
preceding discussion between Bill and Mac. I don't make any
false representations for its accuracy, but the details
mentioned here have surfaced during my own hypnosis sessions
with Budd.

The statement that UFOs are "grown" rather than manufactured may
be much closer to the truth than any one of us suspects.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 5 Jul 2001 12:21:53 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:15:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:54:01 -0400


 >Just one comment here. It is more than "slightly imporper," for
 >the Executive Branch to intrude on the Legistlative Branch. It
 >is highly improper and would require that such requests go
 >through special channels. All branches of government are highly
 >jealous of their prerogatives. There are special channels for
 >the executive to approach other branches of government.

 >I think reading on the early Carter administration would show
 >that Carter did not hit it off with Congress. Besides, going to
 >the Legistlative Branch exposes the Executive to potential
 >embarrassment as CRS, OTA and GAO are all beholding to Congress,
 >not the President. This story hangs on a very weak thread if
 >this CRS investigation for the Executive is to be believed.

 >The idea of government here is rivalry for power and against the
 >accumuation of power by any one branch.


Do you have a question of fact we could put to Sheehan which
would resolve your concerns?

Grant









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                 Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:36:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:17:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:28:25 -0400


 >>From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:20:45 +0100

<snip>

 >To anyone who knows the right-wing politics of the Bush
 >administration, none of this is surprising. The cold war is long
 >over, but still many leading members of the Republican party in
 >America want to go on fighting it. They're suspicious of Russia
 >and China. They worry about North Korea. The revived talk about
 >the "star wars" missile defense is all about missiles that might
 >be launched by "rogue states" like North Korea.

 >The space force is most likely about the future of war, as some
 >Americans imagine it - they want to be ready for anything. It's
 >also characteristic of Republicans that they want to pump money
 >into the military. A space force would cost a lot of money. They
 >imagine, to be fair, some future war in which some other country
 >might have a force in space. In some ways that seems silly -
t>he Russian space program doesn't seem very impressive these
 >days, and China barely has one. But some of the Republican
l>eaders are used to thinking of Russia and China as deadly
 >enemies, and I'm sure they could even imagine weird scenarios in
 >which - after some future political realignment - we might
 >have to defend our satellites against Japan, or even Europe.>

While trying to avoid too much politics in a UFO mail list I
would like to point out that it is this warmongering Bush
administration that is proposing to shrink the military
capabiliy from the previous Democratic-administration policy of
being able to fight two wars at once. The proposal is to be able
to fight only one full scale war and perhaps some "skirmishes".
Problem is no one yet knows what that war would be like. Also,
"information war" poses new challenges to efficient operations
under wartime conditions, challenges that have not been faced in
the same way before.

As for "star wars"... which was a disparaging phrase for the
missile shield system proposed by Reagan... I have been
associated with the laser part of that for over 15 years and
have never seen any indication that laser weapons are designed
to attack anything _other_than_ ballistic missiles and perhaps
high flying aircraft/airplanes.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                       Re: Serious Research - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:37:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:24:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:44:45 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:20:36 -0000

<snip>

 >>Also, I suspect you are confusing a comment about how long the
 >>object was engaged with the helicopter, not counting how long
 >>i thad been visible before that, or after that.

 >On October 21, 1973, less than three days after the event, pilot
 >John Coyne was interviewed by his second cousin, a reporter for
 >the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The article noted the story Coyne
 >told to FAA officials. A red light was spotted by Crew Chief
 >Robert J. Yanacsek. "Seconds later, Yanacsek yelled, ' The light
 >is moving. It's coming at us. It's on a collision course." The
 >article continued, "Coyne said the strange craft hovered over
 >the helicopter only a few seconds... Seconds later the craft
 >disappeared... the story told to [by?] Coyne was verified by the
 >other members of the four-man crew."

 >The next apparent public retelling occured 12 days later when
 >Coyne appeared on the national Dick Cavett TV show. He retold
 >the story, "... my crew chief observed a light on the east
 >horizon... and he notified me of a bright red light on the
 >horizon... he stated that it looked like an obstruction light on
 >top of a radio tower. About a minute later he said that the red
 >light was pacing us... About a moment later he said he said the
 >light was converging on us on a collision course... And by then
 >- it was a matter of 10 seconds - the light was upon us, I could
 >see it coming. It looked like a torpedo coming at us. [Then it
 >was] right over us, stopped. [the trailing light] came on the
 >upper plixiglass and flooded the cockpit with a green light...
 >Everything was green in the cockpit for a couple of seconds.>

 >"And this only existed for two or three seconds... The copilot
 >and flight medic observed its departure. It slowly accelerated.
 >It continued on a westerly heading... the green light was then
 >white, and on the northwest heading it did another 45 [degree]
 >up and off the earth.">

 >Cavett asked if the pilot had gotten a photo and Coyne
 >responded, "There wasn't any time." Cavett asked, "All this
 >happened in how long?" "In about a minute's time," was Coyne's
 >answer.

Later on in his post, Young says the important thing is the
time. However, appearing red, stopping over the helicopter
(which was moving, implying that te object "paced" the
helicopter), accelerating again, meaning that it stopped pacing,
and changing direction before it was gone, are also reasons to
reject the meteor hypothesis, but Young ignores these and ties
his wagon to the time, which is the most variable quantity
reported (duration of seconds to over a minute, at least).

 >The "reconstructed timeline" by Ziedman was a combination of
 >accounts by people who surfaces years later after an exciting
 >newspaper article about the incident.

 >>"Testimony?" I see. Investigations don't count. They are only
 >>dealing with fantasy exercises. Hmmm! By your own standards of
 >>immediacy, Coyne also reported to his superiors and the news
 >>media the next day that the object had a "dark hull," body
 >>lights, and a dome, and that a green spotlight swivelled around
 >>and beamed down into the helicopter.

 >He also reported that it was seen for about a minute and some
 >seconds. The various "details", such as a "dark hull" between
 >bright lights which flood the interier of the aricraft can mean
 >only that he imagined something between the fragments of a
 >meteor. The important thing about this incident is its length.
 >Clearly a five minute sighting would rule out a meteor,
 >provided, of course, that the red light which resembled a radio
 >tower light, seen at first, wasn't a radio tower light.

Young rejects the testimony about details f construction ,
apparently on the basis that Coyne and the others only imagined
what they saw..... In the Young theory we must remember that it
was a fireball at an altitude of perhaps 30 miles or more
traveling in a straight line over the helicopter.....

 >The length of time of the sighting is the key.

This is _one_ key......

If we accept one minute as the duration, which seems acceptable
to Young, there still is a problem with the meteor hypothesis
unrelated to the reported change in direction as the object
disappeared. The problem is the duration combined with the
report that the object "stopped" over the helicopter (which was
going in the opposite direction from the supposed meteor). Even
one minute is a LONG duration for a fireball.

But let's look at the angular speed while passing overhead: take
20,000 mph as a low meteor speed (at 17,000 mph the object is in
orbit). Assume it was at its minimum altitude when passing over
the 'copter (to give it the maximum visibility duration before
and after the "hovering/stopped" event). Assume this minimum
altitude is 50 miles (high?). The angular rate of speed would be
about 400 radians/hour or 6.7 radians per minute or a litte over
0.1 radian per second as the object passed over. Considering
that there are about 57 degrees in a radian, one sees that the
angular rate would be about 5 degrees per second, hardly the
description of something "stopping overhead."









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:06:05 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:28:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:37:20 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:36:43 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young


 >>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
 >>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

After a month of licking his wounds, Bob Young pops up yet again
to "enlighten" us further on the Ravenna case with the following
commentary:

 >Thank you for explaining in detail many of the reasons that
 >people report the Planet Venus as a UFO.

You're a bit confused Bob. I was explaining the many reasons why
several policeman would _not_ think Venus was a large,
disk-shaped or oval object with a dark dome on top, riding on an
ice-cream cone shaped glow of light, at times being blindingly
bright and lighting up the ground, flying over their heads, and
appearing in the west when Venus was in the east.

<snip>

 >>Resolving the shape [of Venus} with the naked eye is impossible.

 >Please point to the place where this claim was ever made.

No, you never explicitly talk about Venus being resolvable. But
you did bring up Venus' angular size in your June 4 post:

 >>>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.

Mentioning the angular size of Venus is irrelevant, unless you
are trying to introduce the issues of shape and resolvability.

<snip>

 >More pathological science from Bob Young.

 >I was of the impression that you said that your degree was in
 >Optometry, not Psychiatry.

If you don't like the term "pathological science", how about
just plain old bullshit instead?

Where a psychiatry degree might be handy is in trying to
understand why skepti-bunkers take themselves seriously. I am
totally bewildered by the religious fanaticism of the
skepti-bunkers, how they self-righteously wrap themselves in the
cloak of science, then propose scientifically preposterous
explanations for UFO cases. Or for why Venus isn't resolvable.

<snip>

 >>But honestly folks -- how many of you have been "blinded" by
 >>looking at the moon with the naked eye?

 >Thanks for creating a phony claim that I never made, then
 >accusing me of pathological thinking.

Gee Bob, you definitely claimed that the reason we can't resolve
Venus was because the bright light "slopped" over onto other
parts of the retina. You claimed it happened "all the time" for
_lunar_ and planetary visual observers. Then you said it was
just like looking at the sun for a few seconds and being
temporarily blinded. But rather than paraphrase you, let people
see what you wrote in your own words.

 >>>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.

Now you are denying that you ever wrote this? If that isn't
"pathological", then what is?

 >Please point to the place where I said that Spaur ever resolved
 >the shape of Venus?

OK, Bob, so you're not claiming Venus is resolvable? But you
_are_ definitely making the claim that optical aberrations of
the eye are distorting essentially a point source of light into
all manner of things that can't be. You are also giving absurd
explanations for why Venus isn't resolvable, then denying that
you ever said them.

 >You gave a very nice lecture about the various things which
 >could cause people to think that a bright object they are
 >looking at in the night sky is a little flying saucer a couple
 >miles away.

I did? Maybe you should add remedial reading to your list of
review courses. Your reading comprehension is terrible.

 >Happens all the time. Otherwise, we would never have any stars
 >and planets mistaken for saucers filled with little men.

"All the time" -- Imagine that. Billions of people see the stars
and planets every night. Last I looked the newspapers weren't
filled with millions of stories of people seeing "saucers filled
with little men" because someone misidentified Venus. It
actually happens extremely rarely. And nobody mentions the UFO
being "filled with little men." (Except, of course, Father Gill,
another man allegedly afflicted with terrible "astigmatism" and
eyelashes that distorted "Venus" into a "saucer full of little
men.")

<snip>

 >>Of course, according to the debunking gospel of Bob Young, every
 >>single one of the policeman suffered from an astigmatism. Yes,
 >>every one.

 >Please point to the place where I state this. You have made this
 >up out of whole cloth.

You claimed "astigmatism" made "Venus" appear to be
saucer-shaped. If this were correct, "astigmatism" would have to
afflict all the eyewitnesses--no?-- for all of them to distort
the object into the same shape.

 >>The "astigmatism" also had the remarkable property of making
 >>Venus appear in the west instead of the east at times.

 >Just set up some straw man like this and then throw a lot of
 >pseudo academic drivel from your dusty library shelves at it.
 >During the 80 mile chase the officers always seem to have
 >turned their cars toward the East and Venus.

Like all debunkers, you leave out all important details that
disagree with your religious beliefs. But in point of fact,
there are many times when the policemen gave directions for the
object that were clearly different from east plus descriptions
completely inconsistent with a dim, point of light like Venus.

At the very beginning of the sighting, Spaur and Neff reported
the object approaching from the _West_. Then they reported it
ASCENDING over the trees, turning sharply to the right, passing
over the road, then hovering. The object was as a large oval in
shape, a brilliant blue-white ("almost as bright as a
flashbulb"). The object lit up the ground. It was also making a
loud humming noise (a common report in close encounters).

None, absolutely none of these observations is in any way
consistent with "Venus."

When they began chasing the object, at times they were driving
south. They reported the object swinging over the highway to
their right, meaning it definitely wasn't in the east but headed
west.

But this is my favorite. Over in East Palestine, Ohio, EAST of
the chase, Patrolman H. Wayne Huston was listening to the police
radio. Huston spoke to Spaur and said he would join in the chase
when they got there. Huston reported seeing BOTH chase car and
the object approaching from the WEST. It would be impossible for
Huston to get his directions confused, because the chase at that
point was on an east/west running highway, with Spaur and Neff
headed east towards Pennsylvania. For Huston to see them and the
object approaching his position, he had to be looking WEST.
Venus, of course, was in the east.

Huston also added little details like, "As it flew by, I was
standing by my cruiser. I watched it go right overhead. It was
shaped like an ice-cream cone�. It was so bright, I would say it
was brighter than the sun when it came up. The point part of the
cone was underneath; the top was sort of a dome."

It's just amazing what a little "astigmatism" can do, isn't it,
like making a dim planet in the east appear to be approaching
from the west, fly directly overhead, appear brighter than the
sun, and appearing large and very unpointlike?

 >You sound like old Doc Menzel, who is actually one of my favorites.

I remind you of Menzel? You're the one parroting Menzel, not me.
Maybe you _should_ see a psychiatrist.

 >The direction that people think, or actually are,
 >looking has nothing to do with astigmatism, except as a way for
 >you to pad this post with more bullshit.

You offered up "Venus", "astigmatism", and "eyelashes" as the
"explanation" for the Ravenna case. If a theory has any
validity, it should also explain most if not all other aspects
of the case, such as "Venus" also being reported in the west,
making turns, flying overhead, appearing larger than a full moon
at times, being blindingly bright, and lighting up the ground.

 >Why are there any IFOs which were planets or stars? According
 >to you there are no reasons for this.

How about Venus being the brightest object in the night sky
(other than the moon) so that it draws attention to itself,
being a point of light with no detail (so that it can be
mistaken for other point-like things, like a distant plane), and
(the real biggy) a lot of people being unfamiliar with the night
sky?

The Lorenzens gave a rather good example of this in one of their
books. Some couple dragged them over to their place with the
story that they were seeing a UFO every night at about the same
time. When the Lorenzen's got there they immediately realized
the couple was reporting Venus. No manner of explanation would
satisfy the couple that they were really seeing Venus.

None of this had to do with the couple having "astigmatism" or
seeing "rays" diffracted off their eyelashes. They were just
plain ox dumb. There are badly educated and gullible people on
both sides of this issue, willing to believe just about
anything, including really dumb "explanations" for UFO cases.

<snip>

 >Yes, David, we already know that you took some courses on making
 >eyeglasses. The question is about an 80- miles chase which most
 >people now seem to think ended with Venus, shining nearly 100
 >times as bright as a first magnitude star.

Oooh, "nearly 100 times as bright as a first magnitude star."
That almost makes it sound like Venus is blindingly bright,
which of course it isn't. It may be the brightest point object
in the night sky, but it still isn't particularly bright when
compared, to say, the moon, or the sun. Note how Huston, e.g.,
compared its brilliance to that of the sun, which is a billion
times brighter than Venus. Venus will never make one's eye's
water (another description), or appear to be as brilliant as a
flashbulb (another description). Nor can it light up the
ground.. Nor will it appear to be many degrees in size complete
with details such as having a dome and an ice-cream cone shaped
light underneath. Venus doesn't hum, or fly overhead, or go
straight up, or jump from one section of the sky to another so
that it appears to be approaching from the west when it is
really in the east. Jeez, get a clue already.

 >It's also doing so
 >right now in the morning sky, your use of stars seems strange,
 >unless it was because you were afraid to look at Venus, now at
 >about the same brightness as during the Ravenna event.

 >You seem like Spaur, himself, who later described sitting in his
 >patrol car another morning with the thing outside in the sky,
 >but he just sat there, smoking, and wouldn't look up.

 >Afraid of something?

More smoke and irrelevancies from Bob Young. Yes, Bob, I was
absolutely quaking in my boots. But the real reason I didn't use
Venus as a test object was because it wasn't in the sky at the
time. Believe it or not Bob, Venus isn't always visible to be
seen as a "flying saucer full of little men."

Speaking of fear, you resemble some small child sucking on a
security blanket. "Venus" and "astigmatism" are your security
blanket in this case. Flying saucers can't exist, therefore, any
"explanation", no matter how stupid or impossible, will have to
do.

 >Get up tomorrow morning and look at Venus in the morning sky,
 >David. Rotate your head, move it around, and look at the little
 >rays that dance and the shape of thing in the sky move with your
 >head. Then put yourself in Spaur's place, and imagine that you
 >are certain it is a 50-ft craft, probably at a couple miles
 >distance.

Like many debunkers, you think if you just keep repeating your
argument, no matter how inane, it will somehow become true. I
have spent several thousand hours observing the night sky in my
life, and no matter how many times I "rotate my head", look
through my "eyelashes", or rev up my imagination, I have never
seen a star or planet blow itself up in size, morph from a point
into a large shape, fly directly over head, become blindingly
bright, light up the ground, change its position 180 degrees in
the sky, etc., etc.

 >Then dream up another 1,500 words of BS to cloud the issue.

The BS, or if you prefer, "pathological science", is all coming
from your direction Bob.

 >But, please list the number of reasons you can think of that might
 >explain the thousands of times that Venus has turned out to be
 >an IFO.

 >And then give us your estimate of the likelyhood that the Venus
 >that was chased later for, what 50, 70 miles, was only a mistake
 >and that what Spaur saw for all those miles simply looked enough
 >like the spaceship he had seen earlier to create the great UFO Chase.

And why don't you give us an estimate of the "likelyhood" that
Venus can appear blindingly bright, light up the ground, fly
directly overhead or straight up, move to the opposite position
in the sky, hum, appear to have an icecream-cone shape and be
many degrees in size, etc., etc.

<snip>

 >>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.

 >I invite all of the ladies and gentlemen (if any are still
 >following this) of the List to get out early before daylight
 >this holiday and take a look for themselves. Venus, the Queen of
 >UFOs, can't be missed in the East.

And watch their "eyelashes" and "astigmatism" morph Venus into a
large, blindingly bright, oval and icecream-cone -shaped,
humming, maneuvering, spaceship "full of little men." (snicker)


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                         Re: Serious Research - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 20:22:24 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:30:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:44:45 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Dick:

 >You had previously written, regarding the Coyne helicopter case:

<snip>

 >The length of time of the sighting is the key.

Bob,

It is an important one of several keys. See Brad Sparks' posting
that demonstrates how wrong you are about this. No matter how
hard you try, you cannot force fit this to be a fireball.

 >>>There are now several organizations which collect reports like
 >>>this, but in 1973 the AMS and the Smithsonian Astrophysical
 >>>Observatory's Scientific Events Network were about it, and
 >>>scattered observers for the Association of Lunar & Planetary
 >>>Observers. Still, even now, few fireballs are actually reported,
 >>>whether they are visible or not.

 >>For a meteor watcher, this is a strangely inaccurate statement.
 >>Fireballs are reported all the time. My files are bulging with
 >>reports from the last few years. As it turns out, I do have the
 >>AMS fireball list for 1973 in my file (I had quite candidly
 >>forgotten that), and it shows no fireball on or near the date in
 >>quesation. However, it includes something like 125-150 for the
 >>year and about 20 for the month of October, most around the
 >>Orionids shower.

 >Do you have the AMS data from observers in the area at the time
 >of the incident? If an observer were actively monitoring the sky
 >near Mansfield (I think a 50 mile radius would work) and saw
 >nothing, then it would be of interest and probably eliminate the
 >fireball hypothesis. However, if there were no observers active
 >in the area, the AMS records are not significant. I think the
 >AMS fireball reports were mostly (if not all) recorded by meteor
 >observers who report them as part of their observations. They
 >are not usually filed by passersby who witnessed a fireball.
 >This is a matter of "If a tree falls and there is nobody around
 >to hear it... ".

AMS obviously has meteor observers in Ohio. Try again!

 >>Bottom line: No evidence of a fireball except for your
 >>personal, strained, counter-to-fact attempt to create one out
 >>of whole cloth.

 >Dick, for what it's worth, there was an interesting article on
 >Space.COM:

 >http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/nuke_meteor_010524.html

 >Before you counter that this was an uninhabited area, consider
 >that ships were present at the time (they always have someone
 >topside on watch) and aircraft were passing through the area. If
 >such a brilliant meteor could go unreported, what does it say
 >for a -8 to -12 meteor, about the magnitude that one commentator
 >has estimated could have caused Coyne event? After all it
 >happened near midnight when fewer people would have been out and
 >less likely to report.

Meteor observers do not retire early. Demonstrate how many
(approx.) ships and planes were present. No comparison
otherwise.

Your adherence to the CSICOP credo is admirable: Non potest,
ergo non est [It can't be, therefore it isn't].

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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:34:35 +0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:32:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Lehmberg


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 12:12:03 +0600
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:19:57 -0500

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:30:23 -0000

 >>>Stan,

 ><snip>

 >>Hell, ufology itself gives them all the ammunition they need
 >>not to take the subject seriously.

 >>Dennis

 >...and how convenient for the ubiquitous "them", and the
 >arbitrary "they". Plainly, much more effort is expended in
 >looking for reasons not to investigate than is expended
 >otherwise <check with John Velez>, and one must measure the
 >magnitude of their own joyful gloat at the appearance of
 >convenient news regarding the folly of ufology... it may also be
 >the measure of ones own intellectual cowardice and a needlessly
 >tragic personal limitation. The unfortunate side effect is an
 >infectious quality

...consoling the contrived complacent while doing the most harm
to the most people, people who might otherwise derive some
utility from the new information presently suppressed for what I
would wager could not be wronger reasons.


Lehmberg@snowhill.com

Sorry about that, I don't know _what_ happened to the rest of
it...









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 5 Jul 2001 13:58:12 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:38:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 21:12:42 -0000

 >Grant,

 >Your posts (and Sheehan's utterances before them) contain many
 >misconceptions about Washington, D.C., in general and
 >Congressional Research Service (CRS) in particular. Apparently I
 >need to back up and make it clear why I say this. You are
 >perpetuating a mythology about President Carter, UFOs, and CRS.

 >First of all you can look at the CRS web site
 >(www.loc.gov/crsinfo) and see a mission statement, history, and
 >contact addresses. Then you need to understand that all of the
 >CRS UFO and ET related publications are open public information,
 >including The UFO Enigma both versions of which I have. There is
 >nothing mysterious or special about them at all. In fact, they
 >are rather superficial.

Once again... what is the date on the publication. Was it
published during the administration of Jimmy Carter. Does it
conclude "that there are from two to six highly intelligent
highly technologically developed civilizations in our own galaxy
over and above ours etc etc

 >CRS does research purely for Members of Congress or
 >Congressional committees (as the name suggests). Since UFOs tend
 >not to be taken seriously in Congress or in the Federal
 >Government, requests for a study or analysis by a committee or a
 >Congressional office tend to be superficial.

I would sure like to see the footnote for this claim.

 >Any of the hundreds of Members of Congress (some of whom at any
 >given time in history obviously may be of any conceivable
 >intellectual status) can request a "study" and CRS is duty-bound
 >to comply. Sometimes CRS goes through the motions (just as
 >another Congressional agency the General Accounting Office
 >does).

A stunning statement. Any reference for this? I doubt highly
that the CRS knew the report was ultimately for the President,
and chose to "go through the motions."

 >By the way, as an aside, during my professional employment at
 >Congressional Information Service (private company) I used to
 >abstract CRS and GAO reports and am quite familiar with them. On
 >many other more "acceptable" topics both agencies do a very fine
 >job. Also, I was one of those interviewed by Lynn Catoe for the
 >Library of Congress UFO-ET bibliography project via the
 >University of Colorado UFO Project contract.

 >Clearly, Jimmy Carter made an effort after being elected to try
 >to do something about UFOs, but basically met resistance (or
 >bureaucratic incompetence or indifference) on every front. He
 >reached out to various agencies. Marcia Smith logically was
 >approached through a committee. So what? You seem to be reading
 >something into this beyond its utter routineness.

So where is the CRS UFO report dated in 1977?

 >Sheehan gives the impression of not understanding what was going
 >on, and reading into the approach to him something that was not
 >there. Sheehan described armed guards and secret depositories at
 >the National Archives for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
 >In those years I spent a lot of time at the National Archives
 >and carried a researcher card.

Sheehan does not mention repositories or any other such thing.
He describes a situation where it appears the Air Force brought
microfilm of the classified sections to a secure unopened
building of the library of Congress. They brought them to the
Library because the Library requested them. They were under
armed guard as would any other valuable asset of the Air Force.

For background information I enclose two sections of two
interviews where Sheehan describes the events surrounding his
viewing the classified sections of Blue Book.


'Strange Days... Indeed' interview August 6, 2000 with Errol
Bruce-Knapp

"They had a big special room downstairs. There were Air Force
Guards at the door."


'Sightings' interview Jeff Rense July 10, 2000

Sheehan: I went downstairs into this big special vault room that
they have down there. There were these two Air Force guys there
guarding it. They checked all my credentials, and said "OK, you
are allowed to go in. They told me I couldn't bring in any
briefcase, I couldn't take any notes. I gave them my briefcase,
and kept this yellow pad and walked in.

So I went into the room and it was really quite primitive. They
had one of these grey tin overhead projector things (which they
also have in the microfilm room on the first floor) where you
put the microfilm in and crank it by hand. Like some old
microfilm reader in a dungeon at Harvard College or something.

Rense: Where is exactly is this room located?

Sheehan: It is downstairs in the new building of the Library of
Congress.. .

Rense: Was this a secure room?

Sheehan: There wasn't anyone in it. As I said there was no one
in the whole building.

Rense: Sounds like the Los Alamos Labs.

Sheehan: It was a little haunting, because there was nobody in
the building. They hadn't even opened yet. It was a brand new
building. So I go downstairs and they have this room, and they
have these guards on the door, and I end up going into it. I'm
going through these different microfilms looking for
documents... these guys are standing outside the door.

http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=546600

<snip>

Grant









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 6

             Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:07:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:40:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sparks


 >From: "Dennis Stacy" <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:31:03 -0500


 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:01:07 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >>When the Chinese develope better technologies with which to
 >>launch missiles with greater range and accuracy, when they
 >>develope better, smaller nuclear weapons, when they become
 >>stronger militarily, they will be a force which might very well
 >>be the greatest danger this world has ever faced. Maybe.

 >>When that happens, they will get their way should they choose to
 >>act as did Hitler and the Axis powers prior to WW I. Maybe.

 >>At the very least, America is responsible for making deadly
 >>certain that it's people are safe from attack as well as
 >>intimidation from unfriendlies. And that includes (in my
 >>opinion) alien entities, as I do not see them as friendlies.


 >Jim,

 >If and when we deploy a missile shield (that probably won't work
 >anyway),

So Dennis is there a law of physics that says missiles cannot be
shot down?

 >we almost ensure that the Chinese will build more ICBMs
 >with more warheads (or a mixture of warheads & decoys) on each
 >one.

Soviet officials say that Reagan's Star Wars SDI so overtaxed
their military-industrial complex that it accelerated the
collapse of their economy, bringing an end to the Cold War and
the fall of the Iron Curtain, along with a real desire for
meaningful arms reductions because it was pointless trying to
defeat the US's technological advances in SDI. Don't we want the
same results with the Chinese?

Why wouldn't the Chinese build as many missiles and warheads as
they can anyway? No is forcing them into a warlike posture. And
anyway, more decoys mean less payload available for actual
warheads. More warheads mean more incentive for destroying the
missiles before multiple warheads can deploy, which is at the
earliest possible moment, right after launch in the "boost
phase," which even Russian president Putin says is the best
strategy.

Whether any of these Star Wars weapons can be used on UFO's is a
dubious question. The software needed to control the complex
trajectory calculations is so difficult with predictable
ballistic paths of missiles how on earth is it going to work on
the highly unpredictable UFO trajectories, near right-angle
turns, etc.? This would require an enormous software
infrastructure far beyond anything needed for missile kills.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

              Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:11:26 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:42:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Hall


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:44:40 -0400

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:01:07 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Cheeses, Greg... I take it you are not a Republican :)

 >You got that right!

 >>Since however the battle was jerned, do you imagine that China
 >>is not a dangerous nation, one which requires deep concern and
 >>caution? Recent events point to this. Certainly, the
 >>Eastern way
 >>of thinking, culture and mind set, particularly the
 >>Chinese and North
 >>Koreans, are not to be ignored and consequently, for us to be
 >>unprepared ... when it comes to their being a serious
 >>future danger
 >>to this world if not this nation.

 >Don't know about that "Eastern mind set" -- wouldn't our South
 >Korean friends have it, too?

 >But I never said there weren't real dangers. As an aside, I
 >might add that I'm morbidly fascinated with the North Korean
 >regime, which may well be the most odious government on earth.

 >Greg Sandow

Jim & Greg,

I haven't followed this thread closely, but it appears to me
that Star Wars is being set up to oppose Republican mental
demons, real or imaginary. China may become our next major
enemy, especially if we choose to bluff and bluster militarily
rather than engage in diplomacy and negotiations. How you
interpret all this depends on your political mindset and
presuppositions.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                    Re: Follow-Up On Injustice - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:33:39 +0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:50:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Follow-Up On Injustice - Lehmberg


 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:53:10 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Follow-Up On Injustice

 >Hi All,

 >Gee, I wonder how Alfred Lehmberg is doing? You remember Alfred,
 >he's the guy that lost his teaching job because the Thought
 >Nazi's he worked for considered the UFO content on his website
 >to be 'verbotten'.

It's what I get for reading from the forbidden index. <g>. I'm
sure my rational social commentary is a component, but the UFO's
are the subject vehicle for that commentary based on my
conjecture that they are wound up tight together...

 >Alfred's been composing and offering us his 'Odes' for years.
 >Whether you like his writing or not, I think I can safely assume
 >that we all love Alfred for the truly unique individual that he
 >is.

What!?! There's someone out there who doesn't like my writing!
Great ZOT! Who is it? Identify yourself! Bailiff! Whack that
person's pee-pee!

 >The world would be a little gloomier and less fun without
 >him in it.

I think my detractors would say it's a little gloomier and less
fun because I _am_ in it, but they are a humorless bunch with no
imagination and with shorts twisted into a typical Gordian
bunch...

 >Yet... some SOB's come along and kick him in the nuts, and we're
 >all standing around allowing the bullying assault to go
 >unanswered. For Alfred it must be like getting your butt kicked
 >while all your friends stand around and watch.

Not a bit. I'm just glad that I have a venue or two from which
to express the sense of rage and betrayal I feel for being
chumped by the system that I gave such substantive support to.
Over two decades of highly decorated service, and _every_ honor
in college, should have counted for something...

 >I'm not like that
 >and I never have been. What happens to my friends happens to me.

Appreciated Mon Frere, mon ami, mi amigo. I'm sure you are being
completely sincere.

 >Alfred, I haven't forgotten you bro. If I can help by writing a
 >letter of protest to your local Board of Ed., or something to
 >help, please let me know.

Well yeah - but aren't you one of those perveyors of "abduction
tales" and such like? Don't you in fact purport to be actually
abducted by aliens? And you have what could be called an equally
inappropriate website... cheeze John. You're even more
marginalized than I am. Save your ink, don't call any more
attention to yourself.

 >As an American I am incensed that you
 >could be fired for the UFO content on your website. On your word
 >I will protest loudly to the Thought Nazi's that deprived you of
 >your Rights and your livelihood.

Right - like being defended by Peewee Herman after being brought
up on a morals charge. <g>. You're not alone, bro. Letters from
Stanton Friedman, Richard Hall, or Errol Bruce-Knapp would be
treated with equal contempt and indifference.

 >"If you go, I go!"

Thanks bro' Before I'm through, I want everyone I can reach to
have a little clearer understanding of what "freedom of
expression" means in the US of A... a country that had no
problem with me as long as I was killing people and destroying
property and equipment (or diligently teaching her sons and
daughters how to do the same), but drew the officious line at
having me in the classroom with her children teaching them how
to creatively lead or intelligently follow...I'd have been
equally good at that... I think better.

 >Regards, my support (in any way) is yours for the asking.
 >And, I haven't forgotten you. ;)

Thanks again, John.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 6

             Re: Scanner Info For FAA/Airport/Aircraft Comms. -

From: Giuliano 'Jimmy' Marinkovicc <9a4ag@clarc.org>
Date: Thu,  5 Jul 2001 17:02:42 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:14:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Scanner Info For FAA/Airport/Aircraft Comms. -


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 17:09:27 EDT
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Scanner Info For FAA/Airport/Aircraft Comms. -

 >Anyone interested in the information on how to tune in to
 >aircracft communications, please send me on offlist mail and I
 >will forward the information. The information may be a bit
 >lengthy for UpDates.

 >Send your requests to:  ConsultTCG@AOL.COM

 >I will send a bulk mail to those on the list.

 >Jim Mortellaro

Excellent suggestion Jim. As a ex military intelligence
electronic warfare person and active ufologist inside hamradio
projects myself, I can say that civilian type of electronic
radio interception is very important when it is connected with
ufology field investigation. The results can be ovesome. For
example if you have a set of radio scanners and receivers active
24 hours on day with active operators and tape recorders, you
can have excellent real time data on the UFO sightings. The best
example about what I am talking about are cases in the past in
the sense of official incidents with UFO's (911 and police radio
communications during those incidents are good example). So when
you have an official radio communication recorded on tape, it is
bringing much better look to the controversy of the case during
the UFO investigation. That is a form of UFO field work that you
will not find in any book about UFO investigations. For all of
you who are interested in the connections between the field
ufology work and hamradio, radio interception and so on I can
suggest to look at the web site of the american hamradio group
ARUFON (Amateur Radio UFO network) at URL: http://www.arufon.org
ARUFON also has a e-mailing list at arufon@yahoo.com

If my memory serves me correctly there should be also a MUFON radio
net active in the USA.

Best regards:

<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Giuliano-Jimmy-Marinkovicc                                  |
|   Zagreb, 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@yahoogroups.com                             |
|   http://groups.yahoo.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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                Re: UFO Cult May Sue U.S. FDA Over Cloning -

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:22:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:17:54 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Cult May Sue U.S. FDA Over Cloning -


 >From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 12:21:28 EDT
 >Subject: UFO Cult May Sue U.S. FDA Over Cloning
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >UFO Cult May Sue U.S. FDA Over Human Cloning
 >By Chriss Swaney

 >PITTSBURGH, July 4 (Reuters) - The lead scientist of a UFO cult
 >that believes life on Earth was genetically engineered by
 >visitors from outer space says she may go to court to protect
 >her human cloning project from U.S. government scrutiny.

 >Brigitee Bosselier

<snip>

 >"We are doing nothing wrong. We are trying to help mankind. And
 >we are not going to be stopped, even if I have to take a
 >bullet," she added.

Obviously, 55,000 members of this clan/group/club/cult
(whatever-the-hell you want to call) it are all too young (or
too stupid) to remember Hilter's concentration camp medical
experiments on people:  a) to produce "the ideal" German (blond,
blue-eyed, fair-skinned idiot, ready to carry out the orders of
their egomanical leader), and b) to justify the re-introduction
of such slave-minds after annihilation of 55 million of their
most brillant and talented citizens. The Nazis claimed (and
still do) that they did nothing wrong.

You know, of course, that after the end of WWII the U.S. sent a
team of doctors, scientists and historians over to the German
towns, outside of which the concentration camps existed, on the
premise that we should "learn from history" the reasons for such
attrocities, so that "history could not repeat itself." The
townspeople were silent and in complete denial and refused to
talk to the investigators about what they knew or suspected was
going in the concentration camps, under their very noses. Deja
Vu?

I've already had eggs removed, been impregnated and delivered of
an alien baby, as well as having a twin baby girl taken from my
uterus at 6 months by the "benevolent" ETs. I'd just like you
all to know, I'm moving if this bitch succeeds in winning her
suit against the FDA. But first, I need to find out where that
other "lab" is. Anybody know? I certainly don't want to move to
that country. Bet you it's in Germany.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                           CIA Files on Noah's Ark

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:59:47 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:23:30 -0400
Subject: CIA Files on Noah's Ark


FYI without comment:


Bristol United Press
Western Daily Press
July 3, 2001

Is this really Noah's ice tomb?

Conspiracy Theory Suggests CIA Has Uncovered The Remains Of Biblical
Boat On The Slopes Of Turkey'S Mt. Ararat

Nicky Redfern


In a move certain to attract conspiracy theorists everywhere,
the CIA has declassified "an interim release of documents"
concerning "the possible remains of Noah's Ark on Mt.Ararat,
Turkey".

Rumours have long circulated that since the late 1940s, the CIA
has been aware of - and has a bulky case file on - an
impressive-looking, boatlike structure that sits within an icy
tomb on the slopes of Mount Ararat - and that it may well be the
remains of Noah's mighty Ark.

So the story goes, the "Ararat Anomaly" (as the CIA describes it
in typically bureaucratic style) was first noticed by U.S.
military pilots undertaking a spying mission over the former
Soviet Union in 1949.

Since then, it has been alleged, numerous photographs and hours
of film footage of the Ark have been secured by the CIA and a
host of other U.S. intelligence agencies.

Similarly, in a situation that mirrors the allegations of
conspiracy and cover-up regarding the notorious "Roswell
Incident" of 1947, in which an alien's body was allegedly
recovered by the U.S authorities, and the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy in 1963, a whole host of claims, and
counter-claims that would sit comfortably in an episode of The
X-Files have surfaced regarding the Ark.

Shadowy sources tell of Indiana Jones-style expeditions to
Turkey - secretly funded by the U.S.


Government - to try to locate the Ark.

Others expand further and maintain that remnants of the Ark have
been found and spirited away to classified military and
governmental installations in America.

And there is talk of intimidation by "Men in Black"-type
characters warning those with knowledge of the Ark to remain
silent.

Far-fetched? Maybe. But not all of the claims can be discounted.

Retired CIA operative Dino Brugioni, for example, has stated
that the photographs, at least, do exist and a number that he
viewed from the early 1970s did show what appeared to be "three
large curved wooden beams" on Mount Ararat.

But what of the CIA's newly released file?

Is it really a biblical smoking gun? Or does it only confuse
matters further and add weight to the claims of cover-up and
conspiracy?

The answer may very well prove to be a combination of the two.

According to the Bible: "God said unto Noah... Make thee an ark
of gopher wood... And this is the fashion which thou shalt make
it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the
breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."

Moreover, it is alleged that the Ark was strong enough to
withstand a catastrophic worldwide flood that encompassed the
globe and that lasted for forty turbulent days.

So the story goes, when the flood waters began to recede, the
Ark settled on its final resting place: Mount Ararat in Turkey,
which borders Armenia and Iraq.

Needless to say, if the CIA has located the remains of such an
impressive vessel, then it would undoubtedly be the scientific
and archaeological find of the century. But would such a find by
the CIA be made public? And what does the agency's released file
tell us?

Interestingly, the first entry in the file does not date from
the immediate post-World War Two era. Nor has the CIA commented
on the assertions of former CIA man Dino Brugioni.

Rather, the first entry in the file dates from 1992 and is a
letter from one Charles P. Aaron, described as "Chief Pilot and
Director of Operations" for the "Tsirah Corporation".

He wrote to the CIA requesting its assistance in the search for
Noah's fabled vessel - a search that had been in progress for a
number of years and that had the support of the late astronaut
Jim Irwin and several U.S. senators and congressmen.

Noteworthy is the fact that Aaron informed the CIA that "several
qualified officials" had informed him that the U.S.  Government
possessed a "restricted-access satellite surveillance system
which is capable of looking through ice".

Aaron sensibly advised the CIA further that he was not
interested in obtaining knowledge of what might have been
classified surveillance-based technology, but simply wanted to
know if the CIA could lend help to Tsirah's quest to search the
ice-covered peaks of Mount Ararat for the Ark.

A memorandum of June 2, 1992 titled Noah's Ark and designated
for the CIA's Office of Imagery Analysis stated that Charles
Aaron's request was sent to the Director. "Mr Aaron's letter
stated a belief that the agency has the technical capability to
look through hundreds of feet of ice and asked that we use this
technology to aid his search for the Ark, " it said "To the best
of OIA's knowledge, there is no such existing technology."

The CIA added that, having looked at "existing imagery" of Mount
Ararat they were "unable to confirm the existence of the Ark or
its proposed location" and suggested that the Tsirah Corporation
should be informed likewise.

Of course, that would seem to suggest that the CIA had not come
across any evidence indicating the existence of anything that
remotely resembled the Ark on Mount Ararat. But, as is often the
case when we immerse ourselves in the murky world of the CIA,
things are not quite so clear cut.

A formerly "Secret" CIA memo contained within the file and dated
21 January 1993, for example, makes a curious reference to a
"request to declassify imagery of Noah's Ark for a TV
production" that was, to quote further, "turned down" by the
CIA.

One might ask, of course: how could the release by the CIA of
"imagery of Noah's Ark" be "turned down" when its very existence
was denied to the Tsirah Corporation?

Equally as intriguing, is a hand-written note (scribbled by an
unidentified CIA employee) that states at the foot of this
particular document: "Life is neither fair nor symmetrical."

Whilst the allegations that imagery of the Ark exists in the
vaults of the CIA cannot at this stage be conclusively
confirmed, the existence of extensive CIA footage of the Mount
Ararat region is not in dispute.

Like the Roswell Incident and the JFK assassination, it is
unlikely that the conspiracy theories surrounding Noah's mighty
Ark will fade and die.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                      Re: A 16th Century Disc - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@email.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 08:36:03 +0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:28:43 -0400
Subject: Re: A 16th Century Disc - Aubeck

 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@email.com>
 >Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: A 16th Century Disc


 >Hello List Members,

 >I have been collecting very old accounts of disc->shaped (or
 >similar) UFOs for some time.

<snip>

 >I have noticed that one particular account is barely
 >known in ufology, and may not appear in English
 >publications in this field at all. Therefore I would
 >like to reproduce it here.

 >In "Viajes al Estrecho de Magallanes" by Pedro
 >Sarmiento de Gamboa (c.1530-1592)we read of this
 >navegator's travels to the Strait of Magellan in
 >1579 y 1581.


Hello to everyone,

There is a small problem with the 1580 case I reported a short
while ago.

I don't like using modern compilations as sources, so a couple
of years ago I checked the case in an edited non-UFO reprint of
Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa�s book "Relacin de los viajes por el
Estrecho de Todos los Santos" in Spanish. There I found:

"vimos salir de la mar una cosa redonda bermeja como fuego, como
una (a)darga, que iba subiendo por cielo o viento. Sobre un
monte alto se prolong y estando como una lanza alta sobre el
monte, se hizo como media luna entre bermeja y blanca. Las
figuras eran de esta manera:"

which in English would read

"we saw emerge from the sea a round thing, red like fire, like a
shield, that rose up on the air or on the wind. It became longer
as it went over a mountain and, in the form of a lance high
above the mount, its shape became like a half-moon between red
and white in colour. The shapes were like this:"

Now, somewhere along the line I misplaced my photocopy of the
pages I used. This has meant that I've had to rely on my
unsourced copy (when I jotted it down I didn't think I'd need to
add the reference at that moment - now I've learnt my lesson!).

I trusted my copy, so I thought nothing else of it. In fact I
later found the same paragraph quoted at:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Cc5b8rm7xB0:para.villanos.net/lista/afr/arc
hivo/indice/61/msg/66/+ovni+%22pedro+sarmiento%22&hl=es

and also in a book by Antonio Ribera, so I had no worries there.
But as I wasn't satisfied with my own unsourced reference, the
other day I asked a pupil of mine to search for the earliest
edition he could find in the "Ateneo," one of the best libraries
in Spain. He discovered that the library had it, in a safe (!),
and got permission to see and photocopy it. But when he gave the
copy to me I was surprised to read "vimos salir una cosa" rather
than "vimos salir de la mar." That is, rather than "we saw a
thing rise out of the sea" it would mean "we saw a thing come
out" or "arise" or "appear [from somewhere]."

This old edition, "Viage al estrecho de Magallanes por el
Capitn Pedro Sarmiento..." is dated 1768 and was printed in
Madrid.

I next asked another friend of mine to check a few different
versions of the book. I'm glad I did, as now I can say without a
doubt that the object in question "appeared" rather than "arose
from the sea." This is a significant difference.

The report is still interesting, of course.

"we saw a round [round and flat] thing appear, red like fire,
like a shield, that rose up on the air or on the wind. It became
longer as it went over a mountain and, in the form of a lance
high above the mount, its shape became like a half-moon between
red and white in colour."

I don't know where the "from the sea" bit sneaked in to some
editions but it was not in the original.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                     Re: Follow-Up On Injustice - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:17:32 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:31:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Follow-Up On Injustice - Myers


 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:53:10 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Follow-Up On Injustice

 >Hi All,

 >Gee, I wonder how Alfred Lehmberg is doing? You remember Alfred,
 >he's the guy that lost his teaching job because the Thought
 >Nazi's he worked for considered the UFO content on his website
 >to be 'verbotten'.


Hi folks,

Maybe Alfred will sue these guys for violating his civil rights.
I wonder if there has been any other successful UFO litigation
regarding people losing jobs, not being hired or promoted due to
their UFO beliefs. Anyone else know? I heard Bob O. Dean sued
a law enforcement agency he was working at for not promoting him
due to his UFO beliefs.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                           THE WATCHDOG - 07-05-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:20:21 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:40:39 -0400
Subject: THE WATCHDOG - 07-05-01


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


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

~ Broma De Jonatn Reed En espaol
~ Jonathan Reed and Company Continue To Lie
~ Hessdalen Researchers To Step Up UFO Hunt
~ Amazing Randi Takes $1.9Mil Challenge To Australia
~ Biggar, Saskatchewan Crop Circle Report
~ UFOs Haunt Missile Crew
~ NIDS Official UFO Reporting Center For FAA

***OF INTEREST***

UFO Dirtbag of the Month for July 2001

For Whom The Bell Tolls...more coming soon...









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                  Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:46:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:44:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. John Mack on SDI Tonight! - Velez


Hi All,

EBK sent me this URL and I think everybody should give it a
read.

http://www.peermack.org/WitnessingSacredTruth.pdf

Basically, John Mack is right. The phenomenon will never be
understood or proven solely by empirical methods. He is also
correct that those capable of relating to the abduction reports
are doing so by purely subjective means. By suspending all
judgement to a certain extent and opening themselves to the
point where they are enabled to "bear witness" to the testimony
of the abductees - who are the primary witnesses to the
phenomena and the reporters of that 'truth'.)

As mundane as it may seem, my disappointment with Dr.Mack does
not stem from any differences of opinion or even philosophy. As
much as with the fact that; he was the first person to come
along with both the expertise, reputation and credentials to
have helped gain some badly needed _credibility_ among the
academic community, and the public at large, for this largely
ridiculed and ignored phenomenon.

No matter how hard I try, whenever I express those thoughts and
feelings concerning Dr. Mack it always comes out of my mouth
sounding like an indictment. It's not. On a purely intellectual
level I agree with him completely. Again, in terms of gaining
the phenomenon some credibility , I think he fell far short of
the mark he 'could have' hit had he stayed on the 'straight and
narrow' path (standards, parameters) set down by his own
profession.

I cannot/will not fault him for going where has gone with this
though. He's a very bright, perceptive, and intuitive man and
like Dave Jacobs and the rest, he has simply gone where the
'evidence' has led (him.) I just keep wishing that he'd use a
lot less pseudo-religious/spiritual rhetoric when he's
explaining his position (and ours) in public.


Regards to all,

John Velez


                      "Nothing is at last sacred but the
                          integrity of your own mind."
                            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                 Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:38:20 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:46:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:31:03 -0500

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:01:07 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >>When the Chinese develope better technologies with which to
 >>launch missiles with greater range and accuracy, when they
 >>develope better, smaller nuclear weapons, when they become
 >>stronger militarily, they will be a force which might very well
 >>be the greatest danger this world has ever faced. Maybe.

 >>When that happens, they will get their way should they choose to
 >>act as did Hitler and the Axis powers prior to WW I. Maybe.

 >>At the very least, America is responsible for making deadly
 >>certain that it's people are safe from attack as well as
 >>intimidation from unfriendlies. And that includes (in my
 >>opinion) alien entities, as I do not see them as friendlies.

Hi Dennis, List, Errol;

 >If and when we deploy a missile shield (that probably won't work
 >anyway), we almost ensure that the Chinese will build more ICBMs
 >with more warheads (or a mixture of warheads & decoys) on each
 >one.

I would not necessarily agree that it probably won't work, as
NASA might not be as intimately involved in the process of
designing the system as they were in designing the Mars Fiascos.

As for the rest of you conclusions, they are likely right on the
money. So we are faced with not having any protection from ICBM
and/or other intrusion into our air space... leaving ourselves
wide open. Or, we can have some protection which actually not
only might very well work, but it would (if you are correct)
cause the Chinese to spend the kind of money Soviet Russia
spent... and maybe go as broke as the Russians did.

No protection or some protection. That's the choice.

 >Sounds like a smart move to me!

 >On the other hand, if Star Wars is aimed at aliens, wouldn't it
 >make sense to enlist the help of the Soviets, Chinese and Europe
 >in the building of same, if only to share the costs? (Much like
 >we're doing with the International Space Station now.)

Star Wars is ostensibly aimed at any intruder. And from my own
personal point of view, to continue to share our technology with
the Chinese is counterproductive. They are our sworn enemy, by
their own words. I tend to take threats seriously.

 >After all, all we'd have to do would be to show their leaders
 >one of those bodies we've got on ice at Wright-Pat, and I think
 >they'd sign on pretty damn quick. (Wouldn't you?)

I might. Would you? That's the litmus test. Answer that question
for yourself and then apply it to a perceived enemy. At any
rate, any possible bodies as Wright Pat ain't got nuttin to do
with this particular scenario.... at least I don't see a
connection.

Say we show them an alien. Is that gonna scare the egg foo young
outa the Chinese?

Not likely....

 >Uh, we _do_ have bodies on ice, don't we?

Beats the bloody hell outa me.

 >Come to think of it, if we've had alien cadavers in our
 >possession ever since 1947, it kinda makes you wonder why we
 >spent half a century's worth of money and lives on the Cold War
 >in the first place.

 >Don't it?

Why? Does having a body preclude having their technology? I
don't think so.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                    Re: Mars Patrol 07-01-01 - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 22:06:44 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:49:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Mars Patrol 07-01-01 - Mortellaro


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Mars Patrol 07-01-01
 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 17:05:42 -0700

 >Hello, all.

 >After reading Mr. Young's and Mr. Rudiak's discussion of
 >Ravenna, 1966, I'd like a little input. I haven't reported this
 >to NUFORC yet, but I'd like a little input on what I possibly
 >saw this last July 1st at 10:02 PM.

 >I have been following the opposition of Mars in what I have
that >passes for a Telescope currently (a celestron C-90) and a
 >little Lunar observing. I am aware of the current position of
 >Venus by the way (I have never, ever, have mistaken a star for
 >something other than a star, and even a planet that thought it
 >could hide as a star. <G>) What I saw was an apparent large,
 >well, craft, It had a configuration like this :

 >        pulsing  white light   -- > * >
0------------------------0 <-----Big, > yellow >lights. >
*<---Red. slow, strobe

                                                  0 <----Another,
                                                  big >yellow
                                                  light.


 >Yes, a freakin' triangle, slow enough to get a look, but too
far >away to get a relationship of size, except Mars, it
appeared >solid, but  again little in the way of configuration
that was >telling. _Know_ my Aircraft, and the position lights,
strobes, >etc. I have never seen anything like this, ever. It
was moving >away from my position, and I first saw it at about
35 deg. above >the S.E. horizon it moved across my field of
sight,to the S.SW. >and passed Mars! giving me a good look at
the configuration, it >then turned, without banking, like a
conventional aircraft, as >it passed Mars.

 >As it turned, I could no longer see the front light, but the
two  >yellow lights and the, for lack of a better word, rotating
 >beacons. I could see clearly. I followed it until I lost sight
 >of it in the haze of the Horizon, making me think that it might
 >have been quite high.

 >I have no idea what it was, but it was definitely something
 >solid. Any suggestions?


Welcome to the ISAFTT-AIDKWTHII Club. "I saw a freaking triangle
thingy and I don't know what the hell it is" Club.

The difference between your sighting and mine, other than a
closer proximity to me, were the lights. Center blue strobe,
rear (not an apex) red strobe and apex lights (brilliant white).

The other ingredient is, "What the hell izzat!?" And if you or
anyone else have any ideas, let me know too. Because in one of
several sightings _we_ had (there are other witnesses to one of
the sightings), the thing took off like a bat outa hell and
never left a trail it was so fast.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

             Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@Konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 07:12:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:58:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Kaeser


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:07:14 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >Soviet officials say that Reagan's Star Wars SDI so overtaxed
 >their military-industrial complex that it accelerated the
 >collapse of their economy, bringing an end to the Cold War and
 >the fall of the Iron Curtain, along with a real desire for
 >meaningful arms reductions because it was pointless trying to
 >defeat the US's technological advances in SDI. Don't we want the
 >same results with the Chinese?

 >Why wouldn't the Chinese build as many missiles and warheads as
 >they can anyway? No is forcing them into a warlike posture. And
 >anyway, more decoys mean less payload available for actual
 >warheads. More warheads mean more incentive for destroying the
 >missiles before multiple warheads can deploy, which is at the
 >earliest possible moment, right after launch in the "boost
 >phase," which even Russian president Putin says is the best
 >strategy.
 >
 >Whether any of these Star Wars weapons can be used on UFO's is a
 >dubious question. The software needed to control the complex
 >trajectory calculations is so difficult with predictable
 >ballistic paths of missiles how on earth is it going to work on
 >the highly unpredictable UFO trajectories, near right-angle
 >turns, etc.? This would require an enormous software
 >infrastructure far beyond anything needed for missile kills.

 >Brad

We run a danger of beginning a Geo-Political discussion here...
<g>

While China is the largest perceived threat that the US faces,
there are a number of smaller third world countries that have
sought nuclear weapons. I'm not a proponent of the prospect, but
I believe that the Bush space based defense system is designed
to be a defensive shield against any type of missile offense from
anywhere on the Earth. If the China threat were to fade away,
there would still be an argument for development of a defensive
mechanism to deal with the smaller threats.

It will probably require an advanced form of artificial
intelligence in the computer control systems to make a defensive
shield functional. The timing issues created by the distances
between the satellites and Ground Control mean that each must be
able to anticipate the actions of the others to a certain
degree. As noted, it would be fairly easy to overwhelm this type
of system and reduce its effectiveness. However, that would be
more difficult for a small "rogue" Nation and perhaps that is
what this type of system is really designed to protect against.

One other issue that (to my knowledge) hasn't been mentioned is
the offer by Bush to provide this technology to other countries
once it is developed, so that they can also establish defensive
shields. NATO members have expressed concern for the change in
the U.S. direction, and until the technical difficulties are
ironed out there's nothing to take the place of the current
'Cold War' defensive status we (NATO and others) maintain.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                           Re: Ravenna 1966 - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:04:27 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 15:51:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Hall


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:06:05 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>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
 >>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Where a psychiatry degree might be handy is in trying to
 >understand why skepti-bunkers take themselves seriously. I am
 >totally bewildered by the religious fanaticism of the
 >skepti-bunkers, how they self-righteously wrap themselves in the
 >cloak of science, then propose scientifically preposterous
 >explanations for UFO cases. Or for why Venus isn't resolvable.

Amen, brother! In the skepti-bunker church, they chant in Latin:
"Non potest, ergo non est. Non potest, ergo non est>."


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                     Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Geib

From: Dab Geib <geibdan@qtm.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:21:17 GMT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 15:52:50 -0400
Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Geib


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:59:47 EDT
 >Subject: CIA Files on Noah's Ark
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >The CIA added that, having looked at "existing imagery" of Mount
 >Ararat they were "unable to confirm the existence of the Ark or
 >its proposed location" and suggested that the Tsirah Corporation
 >should be informed likewise.

The pictures you refer to abound on the internet. The pictures
were on a TV special several years back.

Here are several URLS that point to this pictures and theories:

http://www.noahsarksearch.com/anomaly.htm
http://www.imagingnotes.com/novdec00/feat3.htm
http://reagan.com/HotTopics.main/HotMike/document-11.18.1997.5.html


Hope this helps

Dan

UFO Folklore
www.artgomperz.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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:33:06 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 15:55:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: 5 Jul 2001 13:58:12 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 21:12:42 -0000

 >>Grant,

 >>Your posts (and Sheehan's utterances before them) contain many
 >>misconceptions about Washington, D.C., in general and
 >>Congressional Research Service (CRS) in particular. Apparently I
 >>need to back up and make it clear why I say this. You are
 >>perpetuating a mythology about President Carter, UFOs, and CRS.

 >>First of all you can look at the CRS web site
 >>(www.loc.gov/crsinfo) and see a mission statement, history, and
 >>contact addresses. Then you need to understand that all of the
 >>CRS UFO and ET related publications are open public information,
 >>including The UFO Enigma both versions of which I have. There is
 >>nothing mysterious or special about them at all. In fact, they
 >>are rather superficial.

Grant,

I'm going to reply to this posting first, then get back to your
previous one and respond to it when I have more time, if need
be.

 >Once again... what is the date on the publication. Was it
 >published during the administration of Jimmy Carter. Does it
 >conclude "that there are from two to six highly intelligent
 >highly technologically developed civilizations in our own galaxy
 >over and above ours etc etc

What publication are you quoting from? Let's stop playing games.
You are the one claiming or implying that CRS has published
significant UFO-related reports. Cite them!

I've deleted your demands for "footnotes" to my remarks about
how CRS operates. I told you my credentials and how I know about
them.

 >>Clearly, Jimmy Carter made an effort after being elected to try
 >>to do something about UFOs, but basically met resistance (or
 >>bureaucratic incompetence or indifference) on every front. He
 >>reached out to various agencies. Marcia Smith logically was
 >>approached through a committee. So what? You seem to be reading
 >>something into this beyond its utter routineness.

 >So where is the CRS UFO report dated in 1977?

What CRS report dated (published?) in 1977? If you are saying
there was one, cite it. Or were you referring to the CRS report
by Marcia Smith dated Feb. 18, 1976, titled "Extraterrestrial
Intelligence and Unidentified Flying Objects: A Selected,
Annotated Bibliography"? If so, this is nothing but a 45-page
bibliography, not a "scientific study."

 >>Sheehan gives the impression of not understanding what was going
 >>on, and reading into the approach to him something that was not
 >>there. Sheehan described armed guards and secret depositories at
 >>the National Archives for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
 >>In those years I spent a lot of time at the National Archives
 >>and carried a researcher card.

 >Sheehan does not mention repositories or any other such thing.
 >He describes a situation where it appears the Air Force brought
 >microfilm of the classified sections to a secure unopened
 >building of the library of Congress. They brought them to the
 >Library because the Library requested them. They were under
 >armed guard as would any other valuable asset of the Air Force.

 >For background information I enclose two sections of two
 >interviews where Sheehan describes the events surrounding his
 >viewing the classified sections of Blue Book.

What "classified sections of Blue Book?" If you can demonstrate,
or even advance any meaningful evidence, that such a thing
exists, you would be onto something important, obviously.

 >'Strange Days... Indeed' interview August 6, 2000 with Errol
 >Bruce-Knapp

Thanks for this. I have also read some of his comments on the
internet from previous MUFON talk.

 >"They had a big special room downstairs. There were Air Force
 >Guards at the door."

 >'Sightings' interview Jeff Rense July 10, 2000

 >Sheehan: I went downstairs into this big special vault room that
 >they have down there. There were these two Air Force guys there
 >guarding it. They checked all my credentials, and said "OK, you
 >are allowed to go in. They told me I couldn't bring in any
 >briefcase, I couldn't take any notes. I gave them my briefcase,
 >and kept this yellow pad and walked in.

 >So I went into the room and it was really quite primitive. They
 >had one of these grey tin overhead projector things (which they
 >also have in the microfilm room on the first floor) where you
 >put the microfilm in and crank it by hand. Like some old
 >microfilm reader in a dungeon at Harvard College or something.

 >Rense: Where is exactly is this room located?

 >Sheehan: It is downstairs in the new building of the Library of
 >Congress.. .

 >Rense: Was this a secure room?

 >Sheehan: There wasn't anyone in it. As I said there was no one
 >in the whole building.

 >Rense: Sounds like the Los Alamos Labs.

 >Sheehan: It was a little haunting, because there was nobody in
 >the building. They hadn't even opened yet. It was a brand new
 >building. So I go downstairs and they have this room, and they
 >have these guards on the door, and I end up going into it. I'm
 >going through these different microfilms looking for
 >documents... these guys are standing outside the door.

 >http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=546600

This doesn't sound plausible for several reasons. An Air Force
operation almost certainly would have been carried out in one of
the many Air Force buildings in Washington, including the
Pentagon, Bolling Field, Andrews AFB, etc. Secondly, Air Force
police on Capitol Hill would have attracted all kinds of
attention unecessarily. The Capitol Police would have
jurisdiction for any security.

Questions for Sheehan: Did you approach the Vatican about their
alleged UFO data on behalf of Marcia Smith and/or the Library of
Congress, CRS? Did you do research on UFOs for same? For how
long? What files on UFOs did you examine? Did you generate a
final report? Was it published? Is it classified? Who paid for
your work?

I would like to hear his direct answers to these questions in
2001, not quotes from past comments on the internet.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:00:38 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 15:57:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:15:54 -0700

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>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.

 >Kevin,

  Ed, List, all -

 >Yes and you're both wrong and not only that, you both refuse to
 >examine any evidence that might get you both to change your
 >collective opinions.

Not refused to look at the evidence, refused to examine it for the
fifth or sixth time. Nothing new has been presented, and I have been
in contact with some who are very close to the center of this. Without
something new, there really is no reason to revisit this.

 >All I wanted from you was information concerning the dates of
 >May 29, 30, 31, and June 1, 2, from Barney's wife's diary. I
 >thought it was a simple request but you refused to help. Why?

Actually, I thought that I had supplied the information. There
was nothing in the diary to suggest that Barnett was out of the
office on the dates you mention. I have loaned my copy to
another researcher so don't have the precise information. Maybe
Tom Carey or Stan Friedman will give you the precise
information.

So, I hadn't refused to help, but had supplied the data I had at
hand. And will supply more precise data when my copy of the
diary is returned.

 >There were probably two crashes (Roswell events) but three crash
 >sites.

 >The one in late May and early June that the cameraman filmed was
 >the one on the plains.

If there was any cameraman. To this point we have only written
statements that are altered as criticisms are offered which, to
my mind, fails to inspire confidence in the reliability of the
statement. Not to mention the violation of the various protocols
in place in 1947 when there would be no reason to violate those
protocols.

 >The second crash happened on the night of the 2nd of July and
 >the debris and bodies were removed on the night of the 3rd and
 >early AM of the 4th of July. That crash resulted in the debris
 >found on the Brazel ranch three days later, and is the crash
 >in which the MP participated. From his description of his
 >drive to the site, the location of that crash was probably
 >somewhere in the White Mountain region.

Except there is better evidence that the crash actually happened
on the evening of July 4, which throws your time table off by a
couple of days.

 >The May crash may be the one that Barney observed.

There is no evidence that it is, or that such a crash took place.

 >I was just curious about where he was on those days.

Basically he was in the office in Socorro, which is what I told
you before.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                 Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:43:24 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:02:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:11:26 -0000

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:44:40 -0400

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:01:07 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>>Cheeses, Greg... I take it you are not a Republican :)

 >>You got that right!

 >>>Since however the battle was jerned, do you imagine that  China
 >>>is not a dangerous nation, one which requires deep  concern and
 >>>caution? Recent events point to this. Certainly,  the >>>Eastern way
 >>>of thinking, culture and mind set,  particularly the >>>Chinese and North
 >>>Koreans, are not to be  ignored and consequently, for us to be
 >>>unprepared ... when it  comes to their being a serious >>>future danger
 >>>to this world  if not this nation.

 >>Don't know about that "Eastern mind set" -- wouldn't our South
 >>Korean friends have it, too?

 >>But I never said there weren't real dangers. As an aside, I
 >>might add that I'm morbidly fascinated with the North Korean
 >>regime, which may well be the most odious government on earth.

 >>Greg Sandow

 >Jim & Greg,

 >I haven't followed this thread closely, but it appears to me
 >that Star Wars is being set up to oppose Republican mental
 >demons, real or imaginary. China may become our next major
 >enemy, especially if we choose to bluff and bluster militarily
 >rather than engage in diplomacy and negotiations. How you
 >interpret all this depends on your political mindset and
 >presuppositions.

Quite so. And as a matter of fact, I would like to take this
opportunity to resign as a Constitutional Republican and become
a Democrat. Based largely on the theories of Young Bob and Fill
Class. In addition, I renounce any perceived erectio... sorry,
I renounce any and all sightings, experiences, abductions and
having had sex with lizard turds, Wokies (or howsumever you
spell 'em) and other assorted sots. I have, like many UFO types
here on UpDates, changed my mind... my mind set actually. Since
there are many voices in there.

I renounce the Gensundt Voice because I have found others which
sound better, more sensable... sensible... whatever.

I am now a skeptibunker, an unbeliever, bummer ain't it?

I also renounce my association with anyone wishing to assume the
position of renaissance man, woman or child. I renounce God, the
universe and everything.

Class wins. Young wins. Rudiak is not the man I thunk he was.
Bruce-Knapp is a dopey head and Rense is a doodoo head.

There. It is consumed... consumated. Now we can't get an
anulment. Annullment... whatever.


Gesundt- (damn) I mean Young 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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                  Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 09:17:31 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:05:14 -0400
Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Strickland


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:59:47 EDT
 >Subject: CIA Files on Noah's Ark
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

Dear EBK, Listers,

I thought this U.S. 'secret' camera technology was discussed on
this List a couple of years back? Only, we didn't talk about
"seeing through ice". We talked about seeing through the roofs
of people's homes using heat-sensor technology. The CIA's been
using it for years to spy on drug traffickers in the jungles of
South America. What was 'alive' showed up red, otherwise green
and yellow and brown. What's the big deal?

EBK, you would know?

[Nope! --ebk]

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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                                Internet Scam

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:41:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:09:17 -0400
Subject: Internet Scam


NOTE: What follows is a portion of a message I received
recently. This is virtually identical to a scam letter by snail
mail that was circulated several years ago. I turned that over
to the US post office. The letter suggests that whoever helps
these people will earn 30% of 25 million.

This is a known scam to get bank account numbers from US
citizens and then to transfer money out of the accounts into
other accounts... i.e., stealing. The crooks are not in the USA
and can't be prosecuted. So, if you get a message like this (I
got the same one twice)

Beware!

...........................................




Message text written by "Raymond Amadi"

 >URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL.

DEAR SIR,

A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE NIGERIA TRADE CHAMBER MADE YOUR ADDRESS
AVAILABLE TO ME, HERE IN LAGOS. ON MY REQUEST FOR A REPUTABLE
COMPANY I COULD DO BUSINESS WITH, HE MADE AVAILABLE YOUR ADDRESS
AND THAT OF TWO OTHER COMPANIES IN YOUR COUNTRY. HIGHLIGHTS: I
AM A MEMBER OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE FOR RESCHEDULING AND PAYMENT
OF ALL FOREIGN DEBTS. WE NEED A RELIABLE INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY
WITH WHICH WE CAN TRANSACT SOME CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS, INVOLVING
THE IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF THE SUM OF $25,000,000:00 (TWENTY FIVE
MILLION USD.) TO A FOREIGN ACCOUNT, PREFERABLY SECRET CODED
ACCOUNT.

SOURCE OF FUNDS: THE FUNDS ORIGINATED FROM OVER INVOICED
CONTRACTS EXECUTED

<snip>











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:53:45 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:12:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Hall


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 5 Jul 2001 05:26:22 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >>Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 12:41:57 -0000

 >>>Date: 3 Jul 2001 18:33:37 -0700
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel

 >>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:26:12 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>>>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:23:31 EDT
 >>>>>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Sparks

 >>>>>>>Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
 >>>>>>>UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>>>>>Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

Dick Hall said:

 >>And you believe everything Shirley Maclaine says at face value?

 >When she answers a question about her friend Jimmy Carter on
 >Larry King I think it is worth future investigation. The
 >question put to her by a listener involved an even wilder story
 >about her and Carter which she denied.

Grant,

I have responded to some of this in an earlier posting. Has
Jimmy Carter acknowledged being a "friend" of Shirley Maclaine?
Shirley does tell some rather wild stories, you know.

 >>You also seem to believe everything Sheehan says at face value.

 >It is also worth future investigation. I have spent a lot of
 >time on it and found nothing inconsistant in the many times he
 >has  told the story.

In this case I can understand a need for some investigation. But
we have given you numerous reasons to doubt many aspects of
Sheehan's story, which you never seem to acknowledge; indeed,
you seem to find "consistency" more important than accuracy.
"Consistency" means nothing in this context.

 >>>The CRS did research UFO issues. That is beyond question, even
 >>>if the published reports seemed insignificant as Dick Hall
 >>>maintains. Carter could have done a lot of things, but there
 >>>is not even circumstantial evidence for all the hypothetical
 >>>possibilities.

 >>Obviously you haven't seen these reports or you wouldn't
 >>continue to imply that their mere existence is somehow
 >>significant. They are shallow political responses to an issue
 >>that was hot at the time.

 >I have seen them all. The entire Sheehan incident with Rosemary
 >Chalk at the National Science Foundation and Marcia Smith takes
 >place in 1977.  The two reports (one on UFOs and on on ETI) were
 >completed in the same year. Could you give me the publication date
 >of the "insignificant" report you are referring to?

If you have seen them all, then you appear to have been
pretending otherwise for unknown reasons; but in any case you
must know the dates. Why don't you name the two 1977 reports
that you claim exist? Both "The UFO Enigma" and the ET and UFO
Bibliography certainly are "insignificant" or at least not
especially significant and certainly not what Sheehan is
implying.

 >The Laird letters combined with some of the Rockefeller letters
 >to Gibbons indicate Laird thought the only solution was action
 >by the President to change the rules on secrecy and
 >declassification. Some of the writing even hint that Rockefeller
 >thought the 1995 efforts by Clinton to rewrite the rules about
 >document declassification were at part in response to his
 >pressure for release of the UFO information.

This could be, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the extreme
unlikelihood of a scientific study of UFOs being conducted by
CRS/LofC.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                  Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:55:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:15:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:07:14 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: "Dennis Stacy" <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:31:03 -0500

<snip>

 >>If and when we deploy a missile shield (that probably won't work
 >>anyway),

 >So Dennis is there a law of physics that says missiles cannot be
 >shot down?


Brad,

I don't claim to be an SDI expert, but as I understand it, there
are two programs, each with their own set of unique problems
(and expenses) to be overcome before they can be deemed operable
in any meaningful sense of the word.

One is the booster phase, the other is the deep space defense.

Obviously, there's no law that says you can't shoot down their
missile with your missile. Those same laws, though, make it
damnably difficult to distinguish between a warhead and a decoy
when both are outside the earth's atmosphere and, for all
practical purposes, gravitational field.

 >>we almost ensure that the Chinese will build more ICBMs
 >>with more warheads (or a mixture of warheads & decoys) on each
 >>one.

 >Soviet officials say that Reagan's Star Wars SDI so overtaxed
 >their military-industrial complex that it accelerated the
 >collapse of their economy, bringing an end to the Cold War and
 >the fall of the Iron Curtain, along with a real desire for
 >meaningful arms reductions because it was pointless trying to
 >defeat the US's technological advances in SDI. Don't we want the
 >same results with the Chinese?

I don't pretend to be a Cold War expert, either, but what
advances in SDI? Even the Patriot system reportedly didn't fare
all that well in the Gulf War. I was under the impression that
it was our total military budget (carriers, subs, tanks, stealth
fighter and bomber, and everything else), that bankrupted the
Soviets, not SDI spending.

 >Why wouldn't the Chinese build as many missiles and warheads as
 >they can anyway? No is forcing them into a warlike posture. And
 >anyway, more decoys mean less payload available for actual
 >warheads. More warheads mean more incentive for destroying the
 >missiles before multiple warheads can deploy, which is at the
 >earliest possible moment, right after launch in the "boost
 >phase," which even Russian president Putin says is the best
 >strategy.

As I said, the boost phase approach has its own unique demands,
namely you've got to have the radar and the defensive missiles
on the ground, near the areas you anticipate a launch from. That
kind of deployment doesn't come cheap, not when you're already
trying to pay off a $1.6 trillion tax cut.

Some of your other logic I don't follow. The more missiles
wasted on decoys, the more actual warheads get through, too. No
one necessarily forced the Soviets into a warlike posture,
either, but I don't think the world wants to see another arms
race between us and China.

And I've never quite followed the rogue nation missile attack
argument, either. The likely candidates - N. Korea, Iraq, and
Iran - are well aware that they would pretty much cease to
exist in the event that they were so foolish as to attack the
U.S. with a single warhead.

 >Whether any of these Star Wars weapons can be used on UFO's is a
 >dubious question. The software needed to control the complex
 >trajectory calculations is so difficult with predictable
 >ballistic paths of missiles how on earth is it going to work on
 >the highly unpredictable UFO trajectories, near right-angle
 >turns, etc.? This would require an enormous software
 >infrastructure far beyond anything needed for missile kills.

Exactly, Stars Wars doesn't work against terrestrial rockets,
and it isn't likely to anytime soon (Corso aside). Rumsfield is
still living in the Reagan era.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

              Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:27:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:17:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Stacy


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:38:20 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:31:03 -0500

<snip>

 >>After all, all we'd have to do would be to show their leaders
 >>one of those bodies we've got on ice at Wright-Pat, and I think
 >>they'd sign on pretty damn quick. (Wouldn't you?)

 >I might. Would you? That's the litmus test. Answer that question
 >for yourself and then apply it to a perceived enemy. At any
 >rate, any possible bodies as Wright Pat ain't got nuttin to do
 >with this particular scenario.... at least I don't see a
 >connection.

 >Say we show them an alien. Is that gonna scare the egg foo young
 >outa the Chinese?


Jim,

Scaring the egg foo out of the Chinese ain't got nuthin' to do with it.
You'd simly be saying, Look, whatever differences we've got between
us, we have this, uh, other problem on our hands. Don't you think we
ought to cooperate against same now before we both find ourselves
in hot water?

 >Not likely....

 >>Uh, we _do_ have bodies on ice, don't we?

 >Beats the bloody hell outa me.

 >>Come to think of it, if we've had alien cadavers in our
 >>possession ever since 1947, it kinda makes you wonder why we
 >>spent half a century's worth of money and lives on the Cold War
 >>in the first place.

 >>Don't it?
 >
 >Why? Does having a body preclude having their technology? I
 >don't think so.


OK, try it this way. We've had bodies in our possession since
1947. Instead of rallying the world to a common threat, we
wasted a good 40 years (and no telling how many trillions of
dollars) killing each other in Korea, Vietnam, and other
terrestrial hot spots, and risking nuclear immolation over Cuba.
What's wrong with this picture?

Is the world one more degree unified against outside threat
today than it was a half-century ago? Is there any evidence that
any ICBM built in the last 20 years or so was designed to go up
(into outer space, where they come from) and not come down
somewhere else on the planet?

Bluntly, the record of who we've been aiming at for the last 50
years is pretty self-evident -- other human beings.

Ergo, ipso facto, no alien threat.

The good news is that this means we can go back to aiming
nuclear war heads at each other. And trying to defend against
same.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                      Re: Serious Research - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:38:00 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 17:28:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Strickland


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 20:22:24 -0000

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:44:45 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Dear Dick, Bob, EBK, Listers,

This is a tome. EBK, there _must_ be a better way to organize
this. Intellectually, the rest of you can rationalize this how
ever you choose. I'm not debating. I don't know what I saw,
exactly. So, what this becomes is another anecdote, albeit an
interesting one, with more than a little coincidence(?). So, to
refrain from further confusion, I will recount my one-and-only
experience with a fireball.

In 1992 I had never heard of 'orbs' or 'ball lightening' or
'Feuerballs'. I have had conscious recall of visits and
abductions from the time I was 5, but after 1961 the visits
occurred infrequently, though not without significant trauma.
So, it was with some surprise that in 1992 I had this short-term
encounter, which I still believe was accidental.

Immediately after the initial incident, I told my husband that I
had seen a mini-jet in the canyon, and that it had paced me. I
denied that I had seen a UFO. I did not remember anything else.

My husband asked what had taken me so long (to return from
town). I denied I was late, and did not feel that I'd been
delayed more than 5-10 minutes. I still don't think there was
any appreciable missing time.

At the time, my husband pointed out that he didn't know of any
jet that could stop on a dime, pace a car at 45 miles per hour,
and be completely silent. I forgot about the fireball and white
truck(?).

For years, his sensible reasoning jogged flash-back memories of
being inside an airplane, but nothing more. Then I joined AIC
and UpDates. Whew! So, here is what I recall, so far, and how it
relates to the Coyne helicopter fireball (or meteor) we've been
discussing.

In April, 1992 I lived and worked in New Mexico. I was driving through
the Tijeras canyon (a 2-lane, unlit switch-back road), located about 4
miles east of Sandia AFB and 1 vertical mile from a known secure
Sandia AFB DOD mountain-top radar station) at 10:30 PM, on a fairly
clear, moon-lit night. I was returning from a real estate class in
town and had not been drinking.

I thought I saw a white truck(?) approaching me very fast from the
rear, so I pulled over so he could pass. He passed going so fast I
couldn't focus on him, when a 2 foot diameter fireball, flames and
all, flew past my driver's side window (missing me by 3"), chasing the
white truck(?).

The fireball immediately make a 90-degree left-turn in the road,
following the white truck(?). My mind barely got around that
when I saw a mini-jet zoom in through the canyon (from the
direction of Los Alamos Labs), following the fireball in hot
pursuit.

I thought the jet was going to crash into the rock wall that
cutout to the 2-lane road. I yelled outloud, "Pull up, pull up!
You're going to crash... (into the rock wall)!" Before I could
finish, that little mini-jet stopped dead in the canyon cutout.

No sound. No air movement. No crash!

It was black as pitch, and try as I could, I could not see the
shape of that little baby jet. The fireball was forgotten. I was
absolutely enthralled with that little baby jet, and rolled down
the window. It was just beautiful.

I figured it was a new jet being tested out of Sandia AFB (just
a couple of miles away), and these test pilots were hot-dogging
it through the canyon.

I figured the 'fireball'" was acting as some kind of radar
telemetry system, guiding the jet through the canyon, but the
jet was too big to follow the direct path that the fireball had
taken (down the middle of the 2-lane road), without crashing
into me. What I didn't really think about was that white
truck(?), until yesterday?

Keep reading.

The baby jet hovered next to the rock wall (as if to get its
breath), made a complete vertical climb over the rock cutout,
moved laterally (right) over to the middle of the road (over
me), and then paced me through the canyon for a few minutes,
until it could find another cut out on the canyon wall to park
out of the way. It hovered silently, never landed.

I could see the outline shadows of the pilot and co-pilot
backlit from my headlights, but I was afraid I was blinding
them, so I turned on the parking lights instead.

I remember thinking, "their heads are in proportion to their
bodies, so they must not be aliens." And, I watched them from my
truck, _remove_ outer clothing (like a jumpsuit and helmets?). I
was only about 50 feet away.

There was no engine noise, no breeze-in-the-trees. The silence
was deafening. I recognized that silence.

I was waving to them, wishing they would fly over to the little
valley below me on my right, so I could get out and see the jet
up close, when suddenly I found myself _inside_ the body of the
baby jet.

I don't remember 'flying' the 50 feet from my truck to the jet,
but I do remember standing at a door(?) and the co-pilot said,
"Come in, come in." I was delighted.

The co-pilot was _very_ small in stature, but not overly thin,
stocky build. He wore what looked like a baby-blue, dress
uniform that was cut like Marine Corps whites, high collar,
epaulets and all. Very nicely tailored, very attractive. The
gold thread on the right shoulder epaulet was not braid per se,
but was directly embroidered on it, and had a very interesting
design.

I have seen that design before. It is frequently used in General
Science text books, showing a sun or planet (on the left) around
which the wind curves in ~ fashion around a set of stars (on the
right).

He gave me the impression that he was a Nazi. I pushed that
thought out of my mind immediately, not wishing to offend him,
_if_ he was able to scan my mind. I still do not understand
where that perception originated. It must have been the style of
the uniform he was wearing.

But, because he was walking toward the cockpit away from me when
he first invited me in, I did not know for sure if he was human
or an ET.

I began to walk toward the front of the jet, following him, when
he ordered me to stay where I was, not to come any further. So,
I did.

When the co-pilot turned to face me, I knew he was an ET and
tried to remain calm. I said, "Hi! I'm glad to see you again.
I'm glad you're ok! I thought you were going to crash into that
rock wall back there." His reply was, "I'm glad to see you too."
I said, "I thought you said you weren't coming back." His reply
was, "I lied."

I immediately knew he was not one of the familiar beings I had
known as a child.

I tried to focus on the inside of the jet, what it looked like,
what the cockpit looked like, what the pilot was doing. The
pilot never turned around, so I never saw his face, and only
once did I see him remove his hands from the dashboard controls
to reach down on his right to pull up a lever that looked like a
parking brake.

I focused hard on what the aft end of the craft looked like
(shaped just as the tail-end of a mini-jet would be) and what
the seats looked like. There were only about 3 small
airline-type seats (most were seats like crude wooden-painted
benches along the sides of the jet).

I looked out of the windows back down to my truck (which I could
not see clearly), and was told immediately, "don't look out
there."

I noticed that the clear canopy cover, which from the outside
had looked transparent, looked like a solid, opaque roof, like
any other airplane from the inside.

I said, "You should be more careful hotrodding through this
canyon. If I were your mother, you'd be in big trouble with me
flying like that."

He acted sweetly chagrined, and thanked me for warning them, but my
foolish remark embarrassed me, too late.

I said, "You know there's a DOD radar station to that ridge up
there, just parallel to where we are parked. You better get out
of here before they see you."

They weren't phased by that remark. It was as if he knew. His
nonchalance shocked me, almost as much as the flip, "I lied"
comeback he had made earlier.

Then it was my turn to shock him. He started to walk toward me and
give me the old, "you won't remember anything you saw here," routine.

I interruped him. "You should know that doesn't work very well
on me. You all told me my mind is too strong."

Oh boy, you should have seen the double-take. His face showed
real worry and he was truely scared. The pilot said, "Get rid of
her." I thought, "oh no, they're going to kill me." I had
visions of being dropped onto the rocks below the mini-jet.

He must have scanned what I was thinking, because he then
qualified that remark immediately with a little more reassuring
one and said, "Put her back in her truck."

The co-pilot kept trying to wipe out my memory, and I kept
trying to block him, telling him, "No, No. I want to remember.
Please let me remember."

Finally, I said, "give me a hug and put me back. Next time, you
guys be more careful flying through here."

He didn't smell bad when he hugged me good-bye!

Suddenly, I was back in my truck. I was a wee bit disoriented,
not bad, looked out to where they had been. Zap! They were gone.
No sign of them. No little twinkle in the sky. Nada.

I don't remember turning on the ignition, so maybe it was still
running. I doubt it.

Please bear with me here, I _am_ getting to a point in this tome
about fireballs.

Yesterday, I read this little piece of information in Jim Marrs'
'Alien Agenda', under the subtitle 'Saucers of the Reich',
(Alien Agenda, pp 66-72), which may only serve to further
confuse us all with regard to the whole Fireball vs meteor
controversy and the Coyne helicopter sighting:


"Another secret weapon that might account for some of the
'foo-fighter' reports was an antiradar, unmanned device called
the `Feuerball,' or Fire Ball. Piloted by remote control, the
Fire Ball was designed to interfere with the ignition systems
and radar operation of Allied bombers. According to author
Renato Vesco, the `Feuerball' was `a highly original flying
machine... circular and armored, more or less resembling the
shell of a tortoise, and was powered by a special turbojet
engine, also flat and circular, whose principles of operation...
generated a great halo of luminous flames... Radio controlled at
the moment of take-off, it then automatically followed enemy
aircraft, attracted by their exhaust flames, and approached
close enough to wreck their radar gear."


He goes on to note that the Fire Ball plans took several
iterations, but were supposedly kept secret "from the Americans
and Russians by the British military (p. 67). It was implied
(not stated as fact) that many such German secret weapons plans
were spirited out of Germany just before the fall of Berlin by
Kammler (Hitler's Commissioner General for All Secret Weapons,
including any possible secret saucer project). Apparently,
Kammler let von Braun and Dornberger know he was leaving
Germany. Kammler then managed to disappear off the face of the
earth.

It is presummed that Kammler traded his life and safe passage,
as well as the lives of 500+ German engineers and technicians,
in exchange for the V-2 rocket plans, which von Braun and
Dornberger were working on at the time in Germany.

Suddenly, Werner von Braun (who was immediately recruited to
head up the think-tank A-bomb project at Los Alamos Labs) showed
up safe-'n-sound in the US. He later headed the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, while his friend and
cohort, Luftwaffe Maj. Gen. Walter Dornbreger, later became VP
of Bell Aircraft Co. and Bell Aerosystems Co in the US (Alient
Agenda, p. 67).

Prior to reading this little piece of info yesterday, I thought
the whole Nazi-UFO-post WWII-US technology exchange was just
another conspiracy theory. Maybe it is. I certainly don't want
to draw erroneous conclusions and make unsubstantiated claims
about some vague technology exchange or complicity between the
US (CIA) and the German (Nazi Gestapo) without more solid
evidence. But, it is _very_ interesting. What other facts do we
have?

Because many of my judgements with regard to UFO phenomena are
filtered through my personal experiences, so I tend to see
things a bit skewed, sometimes. I do believe it was an
experimental mini-jet that I saw, not a true UFO. What was
inside, piloting that mini-jet is another question. Because, 2
weeks later I _think_ I saw that same baby jet on a flat-bed
transport (uncovered) traveling down the main Route 66 that goes
through Santa Fe/Los Alamos to Albuquerque (and Sandia AFB).

Fireballs or Meteors? I much prefer the idea of a meteor
hovering in place and making 90 degree turns, over the
alternative... an alien 'Fuerball'.

Don't you Dick and Bob?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                          Re: Internet Scam - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 21:46:05 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 08:53:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Internet Scam - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Internet Scam
 >Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:09:17 -0400

 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:41:50 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Internet Scam
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >NOTE: What follows is a portion of a message I received
 >recently. This is virtually identical to a scam letter by snail
 >mail that was circulated several years ago. I turned that over
 >to the US post office. The letter suggests that whoever helps
 >these people will earn 30% of 25 million.

 >This is a known scam to get bank account numbers from US
 >citizens and then to transfer money out of the accounts into
 >other accounts... i.e., stealing. The crooks are not in the USA
 >and can't be prosecuted. So, if you get a message like this (I
 >got the same one twice)

 >Beware!

 >Message text written by "Raymond Amadi"

 >URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL.

 >DEAR SIR,

 >A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE NIGERIA TRADE CHAMBER MADE YOUR ADDRESS
 >AVAILABLE TO ME, HERE IN LAGOS. ON MY REQUEST FOR A REPUTABLE
 >COMPANY I COULD DO BUSINESS WITH, HE MADE AVAILABLE YOUR ADDRESS
 >AND THAT OF TWO OTHER COMPANIES IN YOUR COUNTRY. HIGHLIGHTS: I
 >AM A MEMBER OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE FOR RESCHEDULING AND PAYMENT
 >OF ALL FOREIGN DEBTS. WE NEED A RELIABLE INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY
 >WITH WHICH WE CAN TRANSACT SOME CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS, INVOLVING
 >THE IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF THE SUM OF $25,000,000:00 (TWENTY FIVE
 >MILLION USD.) TO A FOREIGN ACCOUNT, PREFERABLY SECRET CODED
 >ACCOUNT.

 >SOURCE OF FUNDS: THE FUNDS ORIGINATED FROM OVER INVOICED
 >CONTRACTS EXECUTED

Bruce and list,

The Fund for UFO Research has received several such
communications from this guy. We were not aware that others had
been approached, but I strongly endorse Bruce's expressed
warning. It's an obvious scam.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

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

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:46:42 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 08:55:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >Date: 5 Jul 2001 05:38:31 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:28:07 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com


<snip>

 >>Off-duty means on one's own time. I think that it is probable
 >>that he was also on his own time.

 >Off-duty referred to the military people. Walker was on salary
 >at Penn State and was always on duty. His job at Penn State had
 >nothing to do with UFOs.

Grant:

Of course the fact that Walker was a Penn State prof has nothing
whatsoever to do with MJ-12 or the Government.

 >Oberg said it was a Russian space vehicle. You guys should get
 >your horses all running in the same direction. Walker refused to
 >educate us on either meteors or Russian spacecraft when asked
 >what is was.

Another example of your paranoia. You assume that every person
in the world who is skeptical of your saucer nonsense is somehow
in cahoots. James Oberg thought the Kecksburg fireball might
have been a Soviet (not Russian) spacecraft _before_ he read the
1966 scientific paper which described the photographic
triangulation of the December 9, 1965, meteor.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

             Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@Konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 18:13:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 09:06:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Kaeser


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>- Sparks
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:55:08 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?

<snip>

 >And I've never quite followed the rogue nation missile attack
 >argument, either. The likely candidates - N. Korea, Iraq, and
 >Iran - are well aware that they would pretty much cease to
 >exist in the event that they were so foolish as to attack the
 >U.S. with a single warhead.

Dennis,

The problem may be that the technology is far too available.
Are you saying that Bin Laden wouldn't use such a weapon against
the "Great Satan" if he had the opportunity?  Although I suspect
that a smaller suitcase device would probably be more likely
that a missle attack.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cmaeron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 6 Jul 2001 15:23:35 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 12:16:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:53:45 -0000

<snip>

 >I have responded to some of this in an earlier posting. Has
 >Jimmy Carter acknowledged being a "friend" of Shirley Maclaine?
 >Shirley does tell some rather wild stories, you know.

Do you believe she is intentionally lying about Carter? An
archivist at the Carter library told me she worked for his
campaign. Prior to 1980 a President didn't have to turn over
files he didn't want to. He could destroy them as Nixon was
trying to do. There is no correspondence between Maclaine and
Carter, but if there were, he could still have it in his
possession.

The same Carter archivist told me that Carter suffered from a
"weirdness factor" including the UFO sighting, the lake rabbit
incident, his Playboy interview, and the born-again thing. He
was having a hard time getting people to take him seriously.

There are indications that Carter held back on the UFO issue,
chosing not to make much public. There are 9,000 UFO letters
that came into the White House, whose disappearance even the
people at the Carter library can't fully explain.

A second example is the rumored story that Carter had screened
"Close Encounters". As the rumored story goes, supposedly told
by Spielberg , NASA put money into the film and it was flown to
Washington for Carter to screen. A major Philadelphia paper said
it was Carter's favorite movie.

However, there is no correspondence between Carter and Spielberg
and no record that he was ever in the White House. There is no
record Carter ever saw the movie, despite the records which
showed him viewing many other movies.

There is in the Spielberg name file, which I got opened when I
was there,  a photocopy of Carter and Spielberg together in an
8x10 photograph with an unidentified lady. The faces of the two
men are however covered. One is covered with a small note paper
addressed to Spielberg which says "The President thought you
would like to have this." The other face is also covered with
paper, but there is enough there to identify the two men.

<snip>

 >In this case I can understand a need for some investigation. But
 >we have given you numerous reasons to doubt many aspects of
 >Sheehan's story, which you never seem to acknowledge; indeed,
 >you seem to find "consistency" more important than accuracy.
 >"Consistency" means nothing in this context.

If there were parts of the story I had serious problems with I
would certainly be asking him.

Sheehan has proposed having a tribunal on the UFO issue. Simply
putting the U.S. government on trial. Therefore he knows the
importance of presenting evidence to support a position. I am
sure he would be prepared in any tribunal to present evidence
for his own case.

I proposed, that with the help of Don Waldrop at MUFON-LA, to
present Daniel Sheehan with a list of "fact" questions just as
one would do in a trial to establish the facts. Other than two
questions proposed by a friend locally, I have received NOT A
SINGLE question. I think in a story such as Sheehan's, which
carries substantial weight if true, the least we could do is get
the facts before the judgement.

<snip>

 >If you have seen them all, then you appear to have been
 >pretending otherwise for unknown reasons; but in any case you
 >must know the dates. Why don't you name the two 1977 reports
 >that you claim exist?

Now there is a fact question that we can ask Sheehan.

 >Both "The UFO Enigma" and the ET and UFO
 >Bibliography certainly are "insignificant" or at least not
 >especially significant and certainly not what Sheehan is
 >implying.

They certainly are insignificant because "The UFO Enigma" was
written in 1976 (updated in 83). They are not the same CRS
report referred to by Sheehan, written in 1977. It concludes 2
to 6 extraterrestrial races in our galaxy etc. Much different
conclusions than the high school level UFO reports listed by the
CRS.

<snip>

 >This could be, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the extreme
 >unlikelihood of a scientific study of UFOs being conducted by
 >CRS/LofC.

I hope you mean "serious" study? Then I guess we have to define
"scientific study."


Grant








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 7

              Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Rolfe

From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:23:12 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 12:21:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Rolfe


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:27:56 -0500

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:38:20 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:31:03 -0500

<snip>

 >Scaring the egg foo out of the Chinese ain't got nuthin' to do
 >with it. You'd simly be saying, Look, whatever differences
 >we've got between us, we have this, uh, other problem on our
 >hands. Don't you think we ought to cooperate against same now
 >before we both find ourselves in hot water?

 >>Not likely....

 >>>Uh, we _do_ have bodies on ice, don't we?

 >>Beats the bloody hell outa me.

 >>>Come to think of it, if we've had alien cadavers in our
 >>>possession ever since 1947, it kinda makes you wonder why we
 >>>spent half a century's worth of money and lives on the Cold War
 >>>in the first place.

 >>>Don't it?

 >>Why? Does having a body preclude having their technology? I
 >>don't think so.

 >OK, try it this way. We've had bodies in our possession since
 >1947. Instead of rallying the world to a common threat, we
 >wasted a good 40 years (and no telling how many trillions of
 >dollars) killing each other in Korea, Vietnam, and other
 >terrestrial hot spots, and risking nuclear immolation over Cuba.
 >What's wrong with this picture?

 >Is the world one more degree unified against outside threat
 >today than it was a half-century ago? Is there any evidence that
 >any ICBM built in the last 20 years or so was designed to go up
 >(into outer space, where they come from) and not come down
 >somewhere else on the planet?

 >Bluntly, the record of who we've been aiming at for the last 50
 >years is pretty self-evident -- other human beings.

 >Ergo, ipso facto, no alien threat.

 >The good news is that this means we can go back to aiming
 >nuclear war heads at each other. And trying to defend against
 >same.


I am glad that this subject has brought out some healthy debate,
considering the seriousness of it.

But as I stated in my orginal message that started this
thread... I can't help thinking that there could be more to this
than just the Chinese, etc.

I have read all your comments with interest, and I thank you
all. It has been most interesting.


Chris Rolfe

Director of Research & Investigations
UFO Monitors East Kent









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:14:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 12:26:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: 5 Jul 2001 13:58:12 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 21:12:42 -0000

<snip>

 >Sheehan does not mention repositories or any other such thing.
 >He describes a situation where it appears the Air Force brought
 >microfilm of the classified sections to a secure unopened
 >building of the library of Congress. They brought them to the
 >Library because the Library requested them. They were under
 >armed guard as would any other valuable asset of the Air Force.

 >For background information I enclose two sections of two
 >interviews where Sheehan describes the events surrounding his
 >viewing the classified sections of Blue Book.


Grant,

What we need here is explanation of _why_ Sheehan was shown
purported "classified sections of Blue Book" (the existence of
which is contrary to all previous understanding) when he was
supposed to be a contact for _getting_ documents from the
Vatican. This sounds ludicrous, like the type of incoherent
Scully-esque story intended for the credulous who ask no tough
questions.

 >'Strange Days... Indeed' interview August 6, 2000 with Errol
 >Bruce-Knapp

 >"They had a big special room downstairs. There were Air Force
 >Guards at the door."

Wait a minute! This does _not_ "describe the events surrounding"
Sheehan's viewing of the purported "classified sections of Blue
Book" as you had just promised two sentences earlier. This is
the physical layout of the viewing, not the "events surrounding"
which would tell us the who and the why.

 >'Sightings' interview Jeff Rense July 10, 2000

 >Sheehan: I went downstairs into this big special vault room that
 >they have down there. There were these two Air Force guys there
 >guarding it. They checked all my credentials, and said "OK, you
 >are allowed to go in. They told me I couldn't bring in any
 >briefcase, I couldn't take any notes. I gave them my briefcase,
 >and kept this yellow pad and walked in.

Again, same problem! This does _not_ "describe the events
surrounding" Sheehan's viewing of the purported "classified
sections of Blue Book" as you had just promised a few sentences
earlier. This is the physical layout of the viewing, not the
"events surrounding" which would tell us the who and the why.

 >So I went into the room and it was really quite primitive. They
 >had one of these grey tin overhead projector things (which they
 >also have in the microfilm room on the first floor) where you
 >put the microfilm in and crank it by hand. Like some old
 >microfilm reader in a dungeon at Harvard College or something.

 >Rense: Where is exactly is this room located?

 >Sheehan: It is downstairs in the new building of the Library of
 >Congress.. .

 >Rense: Was this a secure room?

 >Sheehan: There wasn't anyone in it. As I said there was no one
 >in the whole building.

 >Rense: Sounds like the Los Alamos Labs.

 >Sheehan: It was a little haunting, because there was nobody in
 >the building. They hadn't even opened yet. It was a brand new
 >building. So I go downstairs and they have this room, and they
 >have these guards on the door, and I end up going into it. I'm
 >going through these different microfilms looking for
 >documents... these guys are standing outside the door.

Couldn't have been better described than by Silas Newton. This
does _not_ "describe the events surrounding" Sheehan's viewing
of the purported "classified sections of Blue Book" as you had
just promised several sentences earlier. This is the physical
layout of the viewing, not the "events surrounding" which would
tell us the who and the why.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:29:25 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 12:31:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Sparks


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:06:05 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:37:20 EDT
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

<snip>

 >>Just set up some straw man like this and then throw a lot of
 >>pseudo academic drivel from your dusty library shelves at it.
 >>During the 80 mile chase the officers always seem to have
 >>turned their cars toward the East and Venus.

<snip>

 >At the very beginning of the sighting, Spaur and Neff reported
 >the object approaching from the _West_. Then they reported it
 >ascending over the trees, turning sharply to the right, passing
 >over the road, then hovering. The object was as a large oval in
 >shape, a brilliant blue-white ("almost as bright as a
 >flashbulb"). The object lit up the ground. It was also making a
 >loud humming noise (a common report in close encounters).

 >None, absolutely none of these observations is in any way
 >consistent with "Venus."

 >When they began chasing the object, at times they were driving
 >south. They reported the object swinging over the highway to
 >their right, meaning it definitely wasn't in the east but headed
 >west.

 >But this is my favorite. Over in East Palestine, Ohio, East of
 >the chase, Patrolman H. Wayne Huston was listening to the police
 >radio. Huston spoke to Spaur and said he would join in the chase
 >when they got there. Huston reported seeing BOTH chase car and
 >the object approaching from the West. It would be impossible for
 >Huston to get his directions confused, because the chase at that
 >point was on an east/west running highway, with Spaur and Neff
 >headed east towards Pennsylvania. For Huston to see them and the
 >object approaching his position, he had to be looking West.
 >Venus, of course, was in the east.

Thanks, Dave, that is the clincher.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                        Re: Serious Research - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:24:31 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 12:35:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Sparks


 >From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:38:00 -0600

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 20:22:24 -0000

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:44:45 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Yesterday, I read this little piece of information in Jim Marrs'
 >'Alien Agenda', under the subtitle 'Saucers of the Reich',
 >(Alien Agenda, pp 66-72), which may only serve to further
 >confuse us all with regard to the whole Fireball vs meteor
 >controversy and the Coyne helicopter sighting:


 >"Another secret weapon that might account for some of the
 >'foo-fighter' reports was an antiradar, unmanned device called
 >the `Feuerball,' or Fire Ball. Piloted by remote control, the
 >Fire Ball was designed to interfere with the ignition systems
 >and radar operation of Allied bombers. According to author
 >Renato Vesco, the `Feuerball' was `a highly original flying
 >machine... circular and armored, more or less resembling the
 >shell of a tortoise, and was powered by a special turbojet
 >engine, also flat and circular, whose principles of operation...
 >generated a great halo of luminous flames... Radio controlled at
 >the moment of take-off, it then automatically followed enemy
 >aircraft, attracted by their exhaust flames, and approached
 >close enough to wreck their radar gear."

Hi Sue,

I realize you're just getting this stuff from elsewhere so don't
take this personally - this is only meant as comments about the
sources you got this from.

This last line quoted above is nonsense - if they were
"attracted" by aircraft "exhaust flames" then they're using IR
(infrared) sensors not homing in on the aircraft radar. How were
they to "wreck" the radar gear? By making funny faces?
Considering that IR sensors in WWII would have been extremely
primitive and nearly useless (or in fact useless), the radar
homing development was a bit more advanced. Still, the range of
such a small disc would have been about zero, completely
useless.

<snip>

 >Suddenly, Werner von Braun (who was immediately recruited to
 >head up the think-tank A-bomb project at Los Alamos Labs) showed

This is false. Von Braun never worked at Los Alamos, he was a
rocket scientist! Sheesh, can't anyone even tell the difference
between rocketry and nuclear physics? And he certainly didn't
"head up" the Los Alamos lab. Oppenheimer headed up Los Alamos
then Norris Bradbury took over in 1945 and remained in charge
until he retired in 1970. Von Braun was stationed at Ft. Bliss,
Texas, from 1945 to 1950, then he was at Huntsville, Alabama,
from 1950 until he retired in 1972. There's no wiggle room
there! Doesn't anyone know or bother to look up basic military
or nuclear history?

 >up safe-'n-sound in the US. He later headed the National
 >Aeronautics and Space Administration, while his friend and
 >cohort, Luftwaffe Maj. Gen. Walter Dornbreger, later became VP
 >of Bell Aircraft Co. and Bell Aerosystems Co in the US (Alient
 >Agenda, p. 67).

 >Prior to reading this little piece of info yesterday, I thought
 >the whole Nazi-UFO-post WWII-US technology exchange was just
 >another conspiracy theory. Maybe it is. I certainly don't want
 >to draw erroneous conclusions and make unsubstantiated claims
 >about some vague technology exchange or complicity between the
 >US (CIA) and the German (Nazi Gestapo) without more solid
 >evidence. But, it is _very_ interesting. What other facts do we
 >have?

These aren't 'facts' in the first place but fiction made up of
pieces of fact mixed in with a lot of fraud or nonsense.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

             Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:14:37 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 12:37:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Sparks


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:27:56 -0500

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:38:20 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:31:03 -0500

 ><snip>

 >OK, try it this way. We've had bodies in our possession since
 >1947. Instead of rallying the world to a common threat, we
 >wasted a good 40 years (and no telling how many trillions of
 >dollars) killing each other in Korea, Vietnam, and other
 >terrestrial hot spots, and risking nuclear immolation over Cuba.
 >What's wrong with this picture?

 >Is the world one more degree unified against outside threat
 >today than it was a half-century ago? Is there any evidence that
 >any ICBM built in the last 20 years or so was designed to go up
 >(into outer space, where they come from) and not come down
 >somewhere else on the planet?

 >Bluntly, the record of who we've been aiming at for the last 50
 >years is pretty self-evident -- other human beings.

 >Ergo, ipso facto, no alien threat.

What if there was an "alien threat" (taken _extremely_ loosely)
going back to Roswell but no bodies, no spacecraft, no devices
recovered?










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cmaeron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 6 Jul 2001 19:34:43 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 12:47:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:33:06 -0000


 >What publication are you quoting from? Let's stop playing games.
 >You are the one claiming or implying that CRS has published
 >significant UFO-related reports. Cite them!

I realized from your comment that you may not be aware of the
whole Sheehan story. I have attached an updated version that
includes more details of the two reports from 1977.

Grant
____________________________________________________________

President Carter, Daniel Sheehan, and Donald Menzel
by Grant Cameron


"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. Recently surfaced accounts
indicate they have played more than a passing interest in the
UFO problem over the years. Every one of these UFO research
efforts, recorded and rumored, has been led by Marcia Smith.

Sheehan reported that he was asked by Smith, in 1977 just after
President Carter came         to office,."to
participate in a highly classified major evaluation of the UFO
phenomena, and      extraterrestrial intelligence." The
person who made the offer was Marcia Smith, who made him a
special consultant to the Congressional Research Service.

Marcia Smith, had, in turn learned of Sheehan from her good
friend Rosie Chalk secretary at the National Science at the
National Science Foundation (3)

A part of this contact with Marcia Smith and the CRS involved
Sheehan being asked to use his position inside the Jesuit
Washington Headquarters to obtain the UFO documents held in the
Vatican library.

"She called," recalled Sheehan,." and asked me if as Legal
Counsel for the Jesuit headquarters whether I could get access
for the Library of Congress from the Vatican Library. The
Vatican Library has a fairly large section concerning the issue
of extraterrestrial intelligence, and UFOs. I undertook to
contact the Jesuit who actually runs the Vatican Library, and
much to my shock, they said we couldn't have access to it. . . I
related this to Marcia Smith."

Sheehan recalled the encounter with Marcia where she told him
the reasons behind the study.."she ( Marcia Smith informed me
that she had been contacted by the Head of the Science and
Technology Committee for 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, may have
been asked during the first 45 minutes of a multi hour briefing
on November 19, 1976. It was only one of two times time that
Bush met with Carter while Carter was President-elect, and the
second time was a short meeting with others present. 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 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.

No matter where Carter had asked Bush about UFOs, the point
remained that Carter had been turned down. 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.

These CRS UFO related reports were very basic reports with
nothing of a controversial or explosive nature to them. Part of
the reason for this is that UFOs was not a popular subject to be
writing about inside the government.

James Oberg, a former NASA consultant, worked in the 1970s with
Marcia on Congressional Research Reports that dealt with Oberg's
specialty - the Russian space program. Oberg recalled Smith
reticence about writing a report dealing with UFOs.."Back in
the late 1970s," Oberg told me,."we briefly discussed the
overview 'The UFO Enigma' and she expressed exasperation at
having to put something like that together, but basically the
CRS researches what Congress asks them to . . ."

Besides the high school level UFO related reports listed by the
CRS as being authored by Marcia Smith, there are two that won't
be listed in any public directory but out by the CRS. Those two
reports are the ones listed above as requested by President
Jimmy Carter following his election.

The two UFO reports were again written by Marsha Smith and were
described by Sheehan.

They were completed in 1977. From Sheehan's description of the
reports, they were no high school level papers. He knew about
the papers, because as special consultant to the CRS, he played
a role in researching the papers. He also read a final copy of
the two reports before they were sent off to the House Science
and Technology Committee.


Sheehan's research role involved the attempt to obtain the
Vatican UFO documents, and a second more dramatic research
afternoon in the basement of the Madison Building in downtown
Washington D.C. As well as requesting the Vatican records,
Marcia Smith had asked Sheehan to prepare a briefing for the
SETI people at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. To
prepare for this briefing so he could."conduct himself in an
intelligent responsible way", and to get background for his role
as special consultant, Sheehan asked to view the classified
sections of the U.S.A.F. Project Blue Book. According to Sheehan
Smith actually got the documents for him.

"She told me they are going to bring them down to the new
building of the library of congress" (Madison Building) that was
under construction at the time.

"I went over to the new building," said Sheehan. "Even before
it was open. They had this big vault room downstairs."

It appeared that the Air Force who had controlled Project Blue
Book prior to it's closing in 1969, had brought their own people
along to the vacant building to guard the documents.


"There were these two Air Force guys there guarding it," said
Sheehan.." They checked all my credentials, and said �OK, you
are allowed to go in.' They told me I couldn't bring in any
briefcase, I couldn't take any notes. I gave them my briefcase,
and kept this yellow pad and walked in."

"I went into the room and it was really quite primitive,"
Sheehan continued.."They had one of these grey tin overhead
projector things ( which they also have by the dozens in the
microfilm room on the first floor) where you put the microfilm
in and crank it by hand. Like some old microfilm reader in a
dungeon at Harvard College or something."


"It was a little haunting, because there was nobody in the
building. They hadn't even opened yet. It was a brand new
building. So I go downstairs and they have this room, and they
have these guards on the door, and I end up going into it. I'm
going through these different microfilms looking for
documents... these guys are standing outside the door."

"Almost two hours into the search," as Sheehan recalled." I was
going along looking at this and that, all of a sudden there it
was - an absolutely clear picture of a UFO that had crashed into
the ground sideways. There was lots of snow around, so this
obviously wasn't the Roswell crash. There was snow on the
ground, and there were all these Air Force guys around. They had
those big parkas with the big furry hoods on them. You could see
their little name tags on. It was a clear Air Force operation.
They were actually measuring this thing. There were guys with
these big long tape measures measuring the thing. There were
photos from different angles."

"They had an actual close-up of this lettering on the vehicle. I
saw the thing, and it was just one of those kinds of moments.
You know positively this thing is not from here."Sheehan then
carefully traced the lettering on the inside brown back cover of
his pad, at which point he said to himself,."I've got it. I'm
getting out of here."

When he left the vault with his evidence one of the guards
demanded to look at the pad. He leafed through the yellow pages
but failed to look at the back inside cover.." I took this with
me," said Sheehan,."and I reported the details of this to
Marcia. I also prepared my 3 hour seminar for JPL."

Marcia then drafted two reports for the House Science and
Technology Committee.."I ended up getting copies of the two
reports," said Sheehan,."one on extraterrestrial intelligence,
and the other on the phenomena of Unidentified Flying Objects."
(4)

"The first report on extraterrestrial intelligence," said
Sheehan,."stated the Congressional Research Service of the
Official United States Congressional Library in its official
report to the President, through the House of Representatives
Science and Technology Committee, concludes that there are from
two to six highly intelligent, highly technologically developed
civilizations in our own galaxy over and above our own."

"Then they went back to Drake's Equation and the water hole and
all that stuff," continued Sheehan.."In the second report they
have drawings of different shapes of UFOs that have been
sighted. They didn't sight any particular cases but they said
that they believed there was a significant number of instances
where the official United States Air Force investigation were
unable to discount the possibility that one or more of these
vehicles was actually from one of these extraterrestrial
civilizations. They put this together and they sent this over to
the President and I ended up having a copy of it."

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 White House UFO Initiative developed by
Laurance 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.

(3) Chalk had commented on how much of a warrior Sheehan seemed
to be and stated that he must have always wanted to be an
lawyer. Sheehan stated that he had actually wanted to be an
astronaut. Sheehan told Chalk that on the road to becoming an
astronaut he had attempted to get into the Air Force Academy. In
trying to get the senatorial appointment to attend the Air Force
Academy, Sheehan had met with Jacob Javits, Senator from New
York. Sheehan told Chalk that Javits had asked him why he wanted
to go to the Air Force Academy, and he told the Senator."he
wanted to become an astronaut and go out into outer space, and
meet other civilizations." Javits gave the appointment to
someone else and Sheehan ended up going to law school. When
Sheehan was finished explaining this whole story about how he
became a lawyer, Chalk said."Wow, I never imagined that was
true, but I have someone that you have to talk with. They'll
call you." The person who called was Marcia Smith.

4. According to Sheehan in a phone conversation with this
author, there were no classification marking on the reports that
left the Congressional Research Office for the House.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                        Re: Serious Research - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:08:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 12:59:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Stacy


 >From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:38:00 -0600

<snip>

 >Yesterday, I read this little piece of information in Jim Marrs'
 >'Alien Agenda', under the subtitle 'Saucers of the Reich',
 >(Alien Agenda, pp 66-72), which may only serve to further
 >confuse us all with regard to the whole Fireball vs meteor
 >controversy and the Coyne helicopter sighting:

 >"Another secret weapon that might account for some of the
 >'foo-fighter' reports was an antiradar, unmanned device called
 >the `Feuerball,' or Fire Ball. Piloted by remote control, the
 >Fire Ball was designed to interfere with the ignition systems
 >and radar operation of Allied bombers. According to author
 >Renato Vesco, the `Feuerball' was `a highly original flying
 >machine... circular and armored, more or less resembling the
 >shell of a tortoise, and was powered by a special turbojet
 >engine, also flat and circular, whose principles of operation...
 >generated a great halo of luminous flames... Radio controlled at
 >the moment of take-off, it then automatically followed enemy
 >aircraft, attracted by their exhaust flames, and approached
 >close enough to wreck their radar gear."


Sue,

Your own experiences aside, you really shouldn't go through life
putting much stock in anything Jim Marrs or Renato Vesco has to
say about this, that, or the other.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 6 Jul 2001 20:38:00 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:06:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:53:45 -0000

<snip>

 >I have responded to some of this in an earlier posting. Has
 >Jimmy Carter acknowledged being a "friend" of Shirley Maclaine?
 >Shirley does tell some rather wild stories, you know.

<snip>

On the day that Jimmy Carter was supposedly given his big UFO
briefing, June 14, 1977, he phoned Elvis. He also met with
Johnny Cash. It's all a game of contacts and votes. There
doesn't have to necessarily be a meeting of the minds.

There was nothing in the official record that clearly showed a
briefing. See:

http://carterlibrary.galileo.peachnet.edu/diary/1977/Cal1977.htm


Grant







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 00:49:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:08:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Gates


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:31:44 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<large snip so I could use a paragraph for potential humor>

Kevin wrote to Stan concerning Gerald Anderson

 >And please identify one of these strange tales that I was
 >telling about Anderson. I certainly didn't tell him not to talk
 >to you, though you said to him, "Forget Kevin Randle." I didn't
 >tell him that I was a writer of romances, though Stan told him
 >that (and as an aside some of those romance writers make big
 >coin. I wouldn't mind getting some of that, but I haven't, ever,
 >written anything that could be labeled as a romance). Also note

Kevin,

:)

I could see many possible romance story lines here.  You could
start a series about a cowboy and cowgirl on the Plains called
"The Plains of Love....." The main cowboy could be called Cactus
Jack and his love interest could be Blossom..... Naturally at
some point in the series Cactus and Blossom would bump into a
crashed saucer.

Better yet you could you could write a Michner style novel
starting with a family, a saucer crash in New Mexico, and bring
the whole family forward in time, complete with all the
romances, live ins, live outs, divorces etc etc.

You could start with a young couple necking at a drive in near
Roswell and they see a craft come over head.....

Gee the possibilitys are endless, but I suspect you would be
more at home in the cockpit of a Huey.....


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 01:06:04 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:12:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - Gates


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:36:07 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>Date: 2 Jul 2001 14:58:01 -0700
 >>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

 ><snip>

 >>Bush was simply informing Carter of the channels needed to
 >>obtain the information. We could just as well ask "Why didn't
 >>Carter just order a plane and fly out to Area-51 and kick down
 >>the doors? or execute anyone who refused to give him what he
 >>asked for? Because, even as President channels are followed.

 ><snip>

 >>Bush gave his evaluation about how to get the information, just
 >>the _same_ way Melvin Laird advised the Clinton administration
 >>how to get at the classified UFO information. Same s**t,
 >>different day.

 >Grant, List:

 >Same s**t, indeed.

 >The President executing anybody who stands in his way? What bad
 >action movie have you been watching? Do you actually expect
 >anybody to take this nonsense seriously?

 >Bob Young

The point was that even the President of the United States
follows channels. We also know that elected leaders are not
necessarly "told" about every classified project that is going
on within the US. The more famous example of this is Harry
Truman who, when he was sworn in as President, was briefed about
the Manhatten Project, a then highly classified project that was
only reportable to the President.

In either Ben Rich, or Clarence Kellys book on the Lockheed
skunk works they said concerning the Stealth fighter project
that they reported to an Air Force one star general, who
directly reported to the Secretary of Defense, who then reported
to the President regarding the project. Supposedly cut out of
that special access program was the Vice President, Joint Chiefs
and an assortment of high level people that many people would
_assume_ had a "need_to_know.".

Presidents are so busy, with so many things that I suspect a
good many things are not told to them (unless a problem comes
up) nor do they want to know. For example during the Cuban
Missile Crisis you had a U-2 on a previously scheduled mission
wander in to Soviet airspace. President didn't know until after
it happened and after it was a problem so to speak. As I recall
he said something like 'their is always some SOB who doesn't get
the word.." On the other hand if they asked a direct question
and requested a direct answer they would get one, but again they
would follow channels.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 01:10:32 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:13:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Gates


 >Date: 3 Jul 2001 18:33:37 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel

<snip>

Grant wrote:

 >I don't have those papers with me. My recollection is Laird
 >advised Defense Secretary Les Aspin that the declassification of
 >the UFO material was not an issue for the defense dep't. It
 >should go to Gibbons. The CRS never came up. The point is it is
 >not unusual for people inside government to be given advice on
 >how to proceed on the UFO issue.

Pardon my ignorance but this was a new one on me. What was the
story and where did it come from about Laird advising Aspin that
UFO material should go to Gibbons?


Thanks,

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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                          Re: Internet Scam - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 06:03:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:16:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Internet Scam - Hatch


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Internet Scam
 >Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 21:46:05 -0000

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Internet Scam
 >>Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:09:17 -0400

 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:41:50 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Internet Scam
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>NOTE: What follows is a portion of a message I received
 >>recently. This is virtually identical to a scam letter by snail
 >>mail that was circulated several years ago. I turned that over
 >>to the US post office. The letter suggests that whoever helps
 >>these people will earn 30% of 25 million.

 >>This is a known scam to get bank account numbers from US
 >>citizens and then to transfer money out of the accounts into
 >>other accounts... i.e., stealing. The crooks are not in the USA
 >>and can't be prosecuted. So, if you get a message like this (I
 >>got the same one twice)

 >>Beware!

 >>Message text written by "Raymond Amadi"

 >>URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL.

 >>DEAR SIR,

 >>A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE NIGERIA TRADE CHAMBER MADE YOUR ADDRESS
 >>AVAILABLE TO ME, HERE IN LAGOS. ON MY REQUEST FOR A REPUTABLE
 >>COMPANY I COULD DO BUSINESS WITH, HE MADE AVAILABLE YOUR ADDRESS
 >>AND THAT OF TWO OTHER COMPANIES IN YOUR COUNTRY. HIGHLIGHTS: I
 >>AM A MEMBER OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE FOR RESCHEDULING AND PAYMENT
 >>OF ALL FOREIGN DEBTS. WE NEED A RELIABLE INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY
 >>WITH WHICH WE CAN TRANSACT SOME CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS, INVOLVING
 >>THE IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF THE SUM OF $25,000,000:00 (TWENTY FIVE
 >>MILLION USD.) TO A FOREIGN ACCOUNT, PREFERABLY SECRET CODED
 >>ACCOUNT.

 >>SOURCE OF FUNDS: THE FUNDS ORIGINATED FROM OVER INVOICED
 >>CONTRACTS EXECUTED

 >Bruce and list,

 >The Fund for UFO Research has received several such
 >communications from this guy. We were not aware that others had
 >been approached, but I strongly endorse Bruce's expressed
 >warning. It's an obvious scam.


Hello Richard:


This scam/spam is so widespread it is amazing.

Usually, somebody trying to cadge bank account and/or credit
card numbers is a little more discreet, to put it mildly.

With this much advertising, I'm sure all the relevant agencies
are advised .. if not spammed themselves. Rumor has it that the
actual source is offshore somewhere (most likely NOT Nigeria!)
making a fast bust difficult or unlikely.

Yes, its really obvious. I hate to say this, but anyone who
falls for it almost deserves it - larcenous little old grannies
excluded of course.

I got scammed for $12 in New York City in 1965.

I told a cop about it. He said "Just be glad it wasn't for a lot
more." I asked if I should make a formal report. He indicated
that there would be 100 people in line ahead of me, not worth
the $12 all things considered. I kinda liked that cop. No
nonsense.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                              Joseph Randazzo?

From: A. J. Gevaerd <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 10:06:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:18:50 -0400
Subject: Joseph Randazzo?


Does anyone in this list know the whereabouts of Joseph
Randazzo? He used to live in Studio City, CA, back 6 or 8 years
ago, and published the International UFO Library magazine for a
few months.

Last time I heard of him he had his magazine collapsed and then
moved to San Diego neighborhood. I would appreciate if anyone
here sends my any info about his present address or occupation.


A. J. Gevaerd
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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                          Re: Internet Scam - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 07:52:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:32:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Internet Scam - McCoy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Internet Scam
 >Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 21:46:05 -0000

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Internet Scam
 >>Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:09:17 -0400

 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:41:50 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Internet Scam
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>NOTE: What follows is a portion of a message I received
 >>recently. This is virtually identical to a scam letter by snail
 >>mail that was circulated several years ago. I turned that over
 >>to the US post office. The letter suggests that whoever helps
 >>these people will earn 30% of 25 million.

<snip>

 >>got the same one twice)

 >>Beware!

 >>Message text written by "Raymond Amadi"

 >>URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL.

 >>DEAR SIR,

 >>A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE NIGERIA TRADE CHAMBER MADE YOUR ADDRESS
 >>AVAILABLE TO ME, HERE IN LAGOS. ON MY REQUEST FOR A REPUTABLE
 >>COMPANY I COULD DO BUSINESS WITH, HE MADE AVAILABLE YOUR ADDRESS
 >>AND THAT OF TWO OTHER COMPANIES IN YOUR COUNTRY. HIGHLIGHTS: I
 >>AM A MEMBER OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE FOR RESCHEDULING AND PAYMENT
 >>OF ALL FOREIGN DEBTS. WE NEED A RELIABLE INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY
 >>WITH WHICH WE CAN TRANSACT SOME CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS, INVOLVING
 >>THE IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF THE SUM OF $25,000,000:00 (TWENTY FIVE
 >>MILLION USD.) TO A FOREIGN ACCOUNT, PREFERABLY SECRET CODED
 >>ACCOUNT.

 >>SOURCE OF FUNDS: THE FUNDS ORIGINATED FROM OVER INVOICED
 >>CONTRACTS EXECUTED

 >Bruce and list,

 >The Fund for UFO Research has received several such
 >communications from this guy. We were not aware that others had
 >been approached, but I strongly endorse Bruce's expressed
 >warning. It's an obvious scam.


Hello, all, Dick, Bruce,

I've had to deal with these weasels in my business. Ther's a
US Federal Statute dealing with the Nigerian scam artists behind
this mess. Most state Attorney Genreral's offices have an
example of the statute. To the Nigerians it's known as 'Old 405'
just send an E-mail or Fax saying such as: "405's to you" or (my
favorite) "Up your 405!"

I've never had to deal repeat inquires. Hope it works for
others. Also, send a copy to your local state Attorney General's
Office, chances are there is someone very interested in the
Nigerian Scam.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

              Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 12:05:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:33:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? - Stacy


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:14:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >What if there was an "alien threat" (taken _extremely_ loosely)
 >going back to Roswell but no bodies, no spacecraft, no devices
 >recovered?

Brad,

I would have no problem with that.

It seems much more likely than the scenario proposed by some,
which has saucers and bodies raining out of the sky around
Roswell in late June or early July, 1947.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 10:17:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:38:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:00:38 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:15:54 -0700

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Yes and you're both wrong and not only that, you both refuse to
 >>examine any evidence that might get you both to change your
 >>collective opinions.

 >Not refused to look at the evidence, refused to examine it for
 >the fifth or sixth time. Nothing new has been presented, and I
 >have been in contact with some who are very close to the center
 >of this. Without something new, there really is no reason to
 >revisit this.


Kevin,

Your informants "who are very close to the center of this" have
been giving you poor information. And I can't imagine who they
might be since the main folks at the very center of the AA
controversy are Ray, the cameraman, Philip Mantle, Mike Heseman,
Neil Morris, the Roswell photo team, and me.

But there is plenty of new information; you only have to open
your eyes and take a look. The new AA CDs could be the first
place to begin your search for the truth. Neil has been able to
compress the AA footage, the FW photos & much more, and all the
necessary software for viewing, onto two CDs. We plan to sell
them for $15 (that includes shipping and handling) to any
interested researchers. We will also include a Flatland Magazine
which contains two new articles on the debris and the Ramey
message by Neil Morris and M. Dennis.

The information you now have on the AA, as shown by your writing
on the subject, is a hodgepodge of misinformation and downright
lies.

 >>All I wanted from you was information concerning the dates of
 >>May 29, 30, 31, and June 1, 2, from Barney's wife's diary. I
 >>thought it was a simple request but you refused to help. Why?

 >Actually, I thought that I had supplied the information. There
 >was nothing in the diary to suggest that Barnett was out of the
 >office on the dates you mention. I have loaned my copy to
 >another researcher so don't have the precise information

That isn't what you indicated when I first requested the
information. In a sigh-like tone you indicated that you couldn't
be bothered. But I'm still interested. Why don't you humor me
and call this other researcher with the loaned diary and ask him
specifically for Barney's whereabouts on the 30th and 31st of
May and the 1st of June. I would prefer the exact quotes; that
would satisfy my curiosity

 >>The one in late May and early June that the cameraman filmed was
 >>the one on the plains.

 >If there was any cameraman. To this point we have only written
 >statements that are altered as criticisms are offered which, to
 >my mind, fails to inspire confidence in the reliability of the
 >statement. Not to mention the violation of the various protocols
 >in place in 1947 when there would be no reason to violate those
 >protocols.

This is part of the misinformation I mentioned. There have not
been any altered statements. The cameraman's statement has not
been altered and you have offered no proof that it has been. I
asked you for proof during our previous discussion on the AA and
so far you have not produced the altered statement. As for the
protocols, the cameraman explained why he had the footage in his
possession and so far there is no evidence to refute his story
which makes sense in the context of the situation in which he
found himself. It was a simple fluke that we now possess this
amazing footage.

The cameraman led Mike H and others to the crash site by giving
them a map. He included details that could only be know by
someone who had visited the site including a mine activated
during 1947 as a cover for bringing in heavy equipment.

 >>The second crash happened on the night of the 2nd of July and
 >>the debris and bodies were removed on the night of the 3rd and
 >>early AM of the 4th of July. That crash resulted in the debris
 >>found on the Brazel ranch three days later, and is the crash
 >>in which the MP participated. From his description of his
 >>drive to the site, the location of that crash was probably
 >>somewhere in the White Mountain region.

 >Except there is better evidence that the crash actually happened
 >on the evening of July 4, which throws your time table off by a
 >couple of days.

Could you elaborate on this "better evidence". And while you're
at it could you give a brief description of your latest take on
the events at Roswell. With major witnesses falling by the
wayside, it seems to me that the Roswell story has become a bit
tattered and worn. The MP said the crash occurred on the 2nd and
retrieval was the 3rd and 4th of July. And what about the
Wilmots?

 >>The May crash may be the one that Barney observed.
 >There is no evidence that it is, or that such a crash took place.

Yes there is but you won't take a close look. Send me your
mailing address and I'll send you the CDs, free, in return for
the Barney's whereabouts on the 31st of June.

 >Basically he was in the office in Socorro, which is what I told
 >you before.

The cameraman's crash site wasn't that far from Socorro ( at the
foot of the Magdalena Mts.) and Barney may have encountered it
during the normal course of his daily working activities. Yes, he
may have been "in the office" but still working in the field.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 7 Jul 2001 10:32:44 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:47:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:14:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>Date: 5 Jul 2001 13:58:12 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 21:12:42 -0000

 ><snip>

 >>Sheehan does not mention repositories or any other such thing.
 >>He describes a situation where it appears the Air Force brought
 >>microfilm of the classified sections to a secure unopened
 >>building of the library of Congress. They brought them to the
 >>Library because the Library requested them. They were under
 >>armed guard as would any other valuable asset of the Air Force.
 >
 >>For background information I enclose two sections of two
 >>interviews where Sheehan describes the events surrounding his
 >>viewing the classified sections of Blue Book.

 >Grant,

 >What we need here is explanation of _why_ Sheehan was shown
 >purported "classified sections of Blue Book" (the existence of
 >which is contrary to all previous understanding) when he was
 >supposed to be a contact for _getting_ documents from the
 >Vatican. This sounds ludicrous, like the type of incoherent
 >Scully-esque story intended for the credulous who ask no tough
 >questions.

The viewing of the Blue Book files has little to do with the
Vatican files. Perhaps you should listen to the long interview
done with Sheehan by Jeff Rense.

http://www.broadcast.com/shows/endoftheline/00archives.html

or Sheehan's lecture to MUFON Los Angeles last year at

http://www.mufonla.com/

"As well as requesting the Vatican records, Marcia Smith had
asked Sheehan to prepare a briefing for the SETI people at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. To prepare for this
briefing so he could "conduct himself in an intelligent
responsible way", and to get background for his role as special
consultant, Sheehan asked to view the classified sections of the
U.S.A.F. Project Blue Book. According to Sheehan Smith actually
got the documents for him."

As for questions. I have asked Sheehan a number. Other than a
few given by Dick Hall and one local person, no one is asking
questions -  tough or otherwise.


Grant









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 7 Jul 2001 11:12:33 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:08:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 01:10:32 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: 3 Jul 2001 18:33:37 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, and Menzel

 ><snip>

 >Grant wrote:

 >>I don't have those papers with me. My recollection is Laird
 >>advised Defense Secretary Les Aspin that the declassification of
 >>the UFO material was not an issue for the defense dep't. It
 >>should go to Gibbons. The CRS never came up. The point is it is
 >>not unusual for people inside government to be given advice on
 >>how to proceed on the UFO issue.

 >Pardon my ignorance but this was a new one on me. What was the
 >story and where did it come from about Laird advising Aspin that
 >UFO material should go to Gibbons?

I am trying to put together a short article that tells the story
based on documents that I got from OSTP. It may be a few days as
I am swamped with e-mail about Sheehan.

It is not the whole story. One guy who has the whole story is
Dick Farley <cloudrider@aol.com)

You can contact him. Ask him to post a copy of the story here. I
will forward him a copy of this, and hopefully he can give of
his expertise.


Grant









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                         Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 14:27:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:20:15 -0400
Subject: Re:  Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:06:05 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:37:20 EDT
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

<snip>

 >Speaking of fear, you resemble some small child sucking on a
 >security blanket. "Venus" and "astigmatism" are your security
 >blanket in this case. Flying saucers can't exist, therefore, any
 >"explanation", no matter how stupid or impossible, will have to
 >do.

 >>Get up tomorrow morning and look at Venus in the morning sky,
 >>David. Rotate your head, move it around, and look at the little
 >>rays that dance and the shape of thing in the sky move with your
 >>head. Then put yourself in Spaur's place, and imagine that you
 >>are certain it is a 50-ft craft, probably at a couple miles
 >>distance.

 >Like many debunkers, you think if you just keep repeating your
 >argument, no matter how inane, it will somehow become true.<

Bob is simply following the First Rule of Debunking: Any
explanation is better than none... (supplement)... no matter how
inappropriate or (dare I say it?) just plain stupid.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                 Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 14:28:48 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:22:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@Konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 18:13:47 -0400

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>- Sparks
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:55:08 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?

 ><snip>

 >>And I've never quite followed the rogue nation missile attack
 >>argument, either. The likely candidates - N. Korea, Iraq, and
 >>Iran - are well aware that they would pretty much cease to
 >>exist in the event that they were so foolish as to attack the
 >>U.S. with a single warhead.

 >Dennis,

 >The problem may be that the technology is far too available.
 >Are you saying that Bin Laden wouldn't use such a weapon against
 >the "Great Satan" if he had the opportunity? Although I suspect
 >that a smaller suitcase device would probably be more likely
 >that a missle attack.

Steve, Dennis, Errol, List;

Since I must apologize for extracting additional bandwidth from
Errol on the subject of politics, I shall use the word "UFO" at
least once in this response.

Terrorism and Star Wars are two seperate entities. Each has it's
own series of consequences and methodology in eliminating.
Terrorism, I believe, is best eliminated by spooks like CIA and
FBI. In the past, our and other, operatives, have been most
effective in this particular area. I know this to be true
because I am Dennis Stacey's CIA handler.

As for Star Wars, whilst true that there are many hurdles in
technology to overcome, it is also true that we likely will. I
think Dennis, your too pessimistic about our ability to solve
these problems. You pay too much attention to our other
mistakes. Such as screwing up orbits with differences in English
vs. Metric math.

Well, that won't happen again... I can tell you. And for two
reasons. First, it won't make sense a second time, in spite of
the lemming mentality of Americans these days, and second,
because that lie won't make it around a second time. Whatever.

So Star Wars can be made to work. Then, we an use them alien en
tities to really blow the minds of our emenas. En.....

Now for the day new amont. UFOs suck. Which is in keeping with
my newest pair pf dimes. (Credit to Lawrence of Hatchdom).


Young 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 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                       Re: Serious Research - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 13:46:30 +0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:24:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research -  Lehmberg


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:08:36 -0500

 >>From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:38:00 -0600

<snip>

 >Sue,

 >Your own experiences aside, you really shouldn't go through life
 >putting much stock in anything Jim Marrs or Renato Vesco has to
 >say about this, that, or the other.

 >Dennis Stacy

Sue,

Your own experiences aside, you really shouldn't go through life
putting much stock in anything Dennis Stacy has to say about
this, that, or the other.

[I _am_ sorry... just couldn't resist]

Lehmberg@snowhill.com









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                 Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 14:57:50 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:27:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight? -


 >From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:23:12 +0100

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:27:56 -0500

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:38:20 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Who Is Starwars Being Setup To Fight?
 >>>>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:31:03 -0500

 ><snip>

Dear Chris, Rolfe, List, Errol and Bubba, everyone alwyas forgets
Bubba,

 >>Snip

 >>OK, try it this way. We've had bodies in our possession since
 >>1947. Instead of rallying the world to a common threat, we
 >>wasted a good 40 years (and no telling how many trillions of
 >>dollars) killing each other in Korea, Vietnam, and other
 >>terrestrial hot spots, and risking nuclear immolation over Cuba.
 >>What's wrong with this picture?

Once in a lie your there for keeps. Consider the mind set of the
American and in fact, the International, governments during the
late 1940's and 1950's. It was counter to cooperation of any
kind or sort. You know that. And now it is expected or otherwise
desirable to tell the world (if indeed all this is true and
there are bodies, etc.) to tell the world that we lied by
omission, we refused to share, we refused to admit to having
what we had? Of course, it is now too late. And we speak of the
Eastern Culture relative to saving face!? I worked for the
Eastern culture for more than 15 years. As I told Greg offlist,
see my feature article in Business Marketing Magazine on this
very subject. 1989. It's in the archives.

 >>Is the world one more degree unified against outside threat
 >>today than it was a half-century ago? Is there any evidence
 >>that any ICBM built in the last 20 years or so was designed to
 >>go up (into outer space, where they come from) and not come
 >>down somewhere else on the planet?

Parts of this world do not even recognize the likelihood of
other life in our universe, let alone having visited or abused
us. And we do not have to look terribly far to find them. Right
here in the good ol' US of A, we have people who would tell us
that the world is 5000 years old. Gimme a break, Dennis.

 >>Bluntly, the record of who we've been aiming at for the last 50
 >>years is pretty self-evident -- other human beings.

 >>Ergo, ipso facto, no alien threat.

Too true. Cogito, ergo --- zoom

 >>The good news is that this means we can go back to aiming
 >>nuclear war heads at each other. And trying to defend against
 >>same.

Well, also true. But again I ask the question. Would you rather
be standing out in your front yard, feeling completely helpless
against ANY threat or would you rather have a decent measure of
protection against ANY threat.

Cheeses, Dennis, the answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind.
The answer is blowin in the wind. And it ain't swamp gas.

 >I am glad that this subject has brought out some healthy debate,
 >considering the seriousness of it.

 >But as I stated in my orginal message that started this
 >thread... I can't help thinking that there could be more to this
 >than just the Chinese, etc.

 >I have read all your comments with interest, and I thank you
 >all. It has been most interesting.

Nice commiserating with you Rolfe. Hmmm. Does the younger
Shoemacher spell his first name with an "E"? Or is it merely
Rolf? It's the residual Gripple doing me in.

Genuine greetings from the newest skeptibunker, me.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 21:19:07 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:30:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall


 >From: Grant Cmaeron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 6 Jul 2001 19:34:43 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:33:06 -0000

 >>What publication are you quoting from? Let's stop playing games.
 >>You are the one claiming or implying that CRS has published
 >>significant UFO-related reports. Cite them!

 >I realized from your comment that you may not be aware of the
 >whole Sheehan story. I have attached an updated version that
 >includes more details of the two reports from 1977.

 >Grant

 >President Carter, Daniel Sheehan, and Donald Menzel
 >by Grant Cameron

 >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. Recently surfaced accounts
 >indicate they have played more than a passing interest in the
 >UFO problem over the years. Every one of these UFO research
 >efforts, recorded and rumored, has been led by Marcia Smith.

 >Sheehan reported that he was asked by Smith, in 1977 just after
 >President Carter came to office,."to
 >participate in a highly classified major evaluation of the UFO
 >phenomena, and extraterrestrial intelligence." The
 >person who made the offer was Marcia Smith, who made him a
 >special consultant to the Congressional Research Service.

 >Marcia Smith, had, in turn learned of Sheehan from her good
 >friend Rosie Chalk secretary at the National Science at the
 >National Science Foundation (3)

 >A part of this contact with Marcia Smith and the CRS involved
 >Sheehan being asked to use his position inside the Jesuit
 >Washington Headquarters to obtain the UFO documents held in the
 >Vatican library.

 >"She called," recalled Sheehan,." and asked me if as Legal
 >Counsel for the Jesuit headquarters whether I could get access
 >for the Library of Congress from the Vatican Library. The
 >Vatican Library has a fairly large section concerning the issue
 >of extraterrestrial intelligence, and UFOs. I undertook to
 >contact the Jesuit who actually runs the Vatican Library, and
 >much to my shock, they said we couldn't have access to it. . . I
 >related this to Marcia Smith."

 >Sheehan recalled the encounter with Marcia where she told him
 >the reasons behind the study.."she ( Marcia Smith informed me
 >that she had been contacted by the Head of the Science and
 >Technology Committee for 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."

Etc., etc., ad nauseum. With all due respect, Grant, you are
here simply repeating the story told by Sheehan without
acknowledging or responding to the many factual errors, claims
that do not fit with the way Washington works, and other
questionable assertions that have been ponited out to you by me,
Brad Sparks, and Jan Aldrich. Repetition is not truth.

You then assert:

 >The two [significant] UFO reports were again written by Marsha Smith
 >and were described by Sheehan.

 >They were completed in 1977. From Sheehan's description of the
 >reports, they were no high school level papers. He knew about
 >the papers, because as special consultant to the CRS, he played
 >a role in researching the papers. He also read a final copy of
 >the two reports before they were sent off to the House Science
 >and Technology Committee.

Is there any documentation whatsoever of Sheehan having served
as a consultant to CRS?

 >4. According to Sheehan in a phone conversation with this
 >author, there were no classification marking on the reports that
 >left the Congressional Research Office for the House.

Then why isn't it open public knowledge?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                            Re: The Nigerian Scam

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 18:24:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:32:38 -0400
Subject: Re: The Nigerian Scam


The 'Nigerian Scam' has been going on for years, decades even.
They used to use paper mail. They capture addresses from
anywhere and everywhere. They've taken - in a big way - to using
the internet.

This web site is the "419 Coalition" ("419" - Four-One-Nine -
after the relevant section of the Criminal Code of Nigeria.)

http://home.rica.net/alphae/419coal/

 From the site:

"The Nigerian Scam is, according to published reports, the Third
to Fifth largest industry in Nigeria."

People have actually been lured to Africa and killed in pursuit
of this 'free money'.

So, Beware!









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:24:58 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:36:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 7 Jul 2001 10:32:44 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:14:03 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>Date: 5 Jul 2001 13:58:12 -0700
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>>Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 21:12:42 -0000

 >><snip>

 >>>Sheehan does not mention repositories or any other such thing.
 >>>He describes a situation where it appears the Air Force brought
 >>>microfilm of the classified sections to a secure unopened
 >>>building of the library of Congress. They brought them to the
 >>>Library because the Library requested them. They were under
 >>>armed guard as would any other valuable asset of the Air Force.

 >>>For background information I enclose two sections of two
 >>>interviews where Sheehan describes the events surrounding his
 >>>viewing the classified sections of Blue Book.

 >>Grant,

 >>What we need here is explanation of _why_ Sheehan was shown
 >>purported "classified sections of Blue Book" (the existence of
 >>which is contrary to all previous understanding) when he was
 >>supposed to be a contact for _getting_ documents from the
 >>Vatican. This sounds ludicrous, like the type of incoherent
 >>Scully-esque story intended for the credulous who ask no tough
 >>questions.

 >The viewing of the Blue Book files has little to do with the
 >Vatican files. Perhaps you should listen to the long interview
 >done with Sheehan by Jeff Rense.

 >http://www.broadcast.com/shows/endoftheline/00archives.html

 >or Sheehan's lecture to MUFON Los Angeles last year at

 >http://www.mufonla.com/

 >"As well as requesting the Vatican records, Marcia Smith had
 >asked Sheehan to prepare a briefing for the SETI people at the
 >Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. To prepare for this
 >briefing so he could "conduct himself in an intelligent
 >responsible way", and to get background for his role as special
 >consultant, Sheehan asked to view the classified sections of the
 >U.S.A.F. Project Blue Book. According to Sheehan Smith actually
 >got the documents for him."


Grant,

This doesn't help any - _why_ would someone with Sheehan's
non-scientist political-religious background be asked by Marcia
Smith to give a briefing to JPL SETI personnel which takes one
away from UFO's (SETI's antagonism to UFO's is long-standing and
well-known)? That makes no sense. Nor does Sheehan asking for
"classified sections" of Blue Book (aside from the grammatical
absurdity, Blue Book was an activity, a project, not a thing or
a set of files). Why should he care about classified or not
classified in order to give a briefing to JPL SETI people?

Don't say few questions have been asked of Sheehan - I've asked
dozens now.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                      Re: Serious Research - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:20:59 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:38:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Strickland


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:08:36 -0500

 >>From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:38:00 -0600

 ><snip>

 >>Yesterday, I read this little piece of information in Jim Marrs'
 >>'Alien Agenda', under the subtitle 'Saucers of the Reich',
 >>(Alien Agenda, pp 66-72), which may only serve to further
 >>confuse us all with regard to the whole Fireball vs meteor
 >>controversy and the Coyne helicopter sighting:
 >
 >>"Another secret weapon that might account for some of the
 >>'foo-fighter' reports was an antiradar, unmanned device called
 >>the `Feuerball,' or Fire Ball. Piloted by remote control, the
 >>Fire Ball was designed to interfere with the ignition systems
 >>and radar operation of Allied bombers. According to author
 >>Renato Vesco, the `Feuerball' was `a highly original flying
 >>machine... circular and armored, more or less resembling the
 >>shell of a tortoise, and was powered by a special turbojet
 >>engine, also flat and circular, whose principles of operation...
 >>generated a great halo of luminous flames... Radio controlled at
 >>the moment of take-off, it then automatically followed enemy
 >>aircraft, attracted by their exhaust flames, and approached
 >>close enough to wreck their radar gear."

 >Sue,

 >Your own experiences aside, you really shouldn't go through life
 >putting much stock in anything Jim Marrs or Renato Vesco has to
 >say about this, that, or the other.

 >Dennis Stacy

Hi Dennis,

Why? I'm serious as I can be. I don't know a thing about "who's,
who"! I've read a couple of Marrs' books. He seems quite able to
piece together bits of trivia without flying off on tangents.
I'm not saying _everything_ I've read of his fits my
understanding or perception of reality. His PSI Spies pushes it
a bit for me. But, I filter everything through a very strict
mental gauntlet...which includes and can never preclude my
personal experiences. If the information I receive tends to
correlate with my experience, and I am uncomfortable with the
conclusions I begin to form, I try to find other information
which may unlock the mystery.

Obviously, it bothers me a lot when there is a large gap between
what I _want_ to believe and what I _must_ believe, having
filtered said information through my mental gauntlet. That's why
I posted the whole tome, so _everyone_ (including you, despite
your proclevity toward skepticism) could filter the whole
enchilada through their own personal gauntlet.. Like I said,
maybe my perception is skewed. I'm a good student.

I would deeply appreciate your clear thinking on this matter, as
well as some of the other researchers. Dennis, as uncomfortable
as it may be for you to allow the whole picture to come into
focus, please try. You can just imagine how "splattered" I felt
when I read that little piece of info.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                      Re: Serious Research - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:38:42 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:53:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Strickland


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:24:31 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:38:00 -0600

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 20:22:24 -0000

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:44:45 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hi Sue,

 >I realize you're just getting this stuff from elsewhere so don't
 >take this personally - this is only meant as comments about the
 >sources you got this from.

 >This last line quoted above is nonsense - if they were
 >"attracted" by aircraft "exhaust flames" then they're using IR
 >(infrared) sensors not homing in on the aircraft radar. How were
 >they to "wreck" the radar gear? By making funny faces?
 >Considering that IR sensors in WWII would have been extremely
 >primitive and nearly useless (or in fact useless), the radar
 >homing development was a bit more advanced. Still, the range of
 >such a small disc would have been about zero, completely
 >useless.

 ><snip>

 >>Suddenly, Werner von Braun (who was immediately recruited to
 >>head up the think-tank A-bomb project at Los Alamos Labs) showed

 >This is false. Von Braun never worked at Los Alamos, he was a
 >rocket scientist! Sheesh, can't anyone even tell the difference
 >between rocketry and nuclear physics? And he certainly didn't
 >"head up" the Los Alamos lab. Oppenheimer headed up Los Alamos
 >then Norris Bradbury took over in 1945 and remained in charge
 >until he retired in 1970. Von Braun was stationed at Ft. Bliss,
 >Texas, from 1945 to 1950, then he was at Huntsville, Alabama,
 >from 1950 until he retired in 1972. There's no wiggle room
 >there! Doesn't anyone know or bother to look up basic military
 >or nuclear history?

 >>up safe-'n-sound in the US. He later headed the National
 >>Aeronautics and Space Administration, while his friend and
 >>cohort, Luftwaffe Maj. Gen. Walter Dornbreger, later became VP
 >>of Bell Aircraft Co. and Bell Aerosystems Co in the US (Alient
 >>Agenda, p. 67).

 >>Prior to reading this little piece of info yesterday, I thought
 >>the whole Nazi-UFO-post WWII-US technology exchange was just
 >>another conspiracy theory. Maybe it is. I certainly don't want
 >>to draw erroneous conclusions and make unsubstantiated claims
 >>about some vague technology exchange or complicity between the
 >>US (CIA) and the German (Nazi Gestapo) without more solid
 >>evidence. But, it is _very_ interesting. What other facts do we
 >>have?
 >
 >These aren't 'facts' in the first place but fiction made up of
 >pieces of fact mixed in with a lot of fraud or nonsense.

 >Brad


Hi Brad,

Thanks for setting me straight on several aspects of that
excerpt. You seem to be well-informed on the technical aspects
as well as the historial. I remember reading "the exhaust fumes"
phrase and I did think, "What? There must be something in the
exhaust fumes of turbojets I don't know the first thing about."
And, the Oppenheimer/von Braun mistake was all mine. Don't blame
the author for my stupidity. Sorry. I will take 20 lashes for
that one!


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 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                       Re: Serious Research - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 00:01:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:56:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Aldrich


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:24:31 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:38:00 -0600

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 20:22:24 -0000

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:44:45 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>Yesterday, I read this little piece of information in Jim Marrs'
 >>'Alien Agenda', under the subtitle 'Saucers of the Reich',
 >>(Alien Agenda, pp 66-72), which may only serve to further
 >>confuse us all with regard to the whole Fireball vs meteor
 >>controversy and the Coyne helicopter sighting:

 >>"Another secret weapon that might account for some of the
 >>'foo-fighter' reports was an antiradar, unmanned device called
 >>the `Feuerball,' or Fire Ball. Piloted by remote control, the
 >>Fire Ball was designed to interfere with the ignition systems
 >>and radar operation of Allied bombers. According to author
 >>Renato Vesco, the `Feuerball' was `a highly original flying
 >>machine... circular and armored, more or less resembling the
 >>shell of a tortoise, and was powered by a special turbojet
 >>engine, also flat and circular, whose principles of operation...
 >>generated a great halo of luminous flames... Radio controlled at
 >>the moment of take-off, it then automatically followed enemy
 >>aircraft, attracted by their exhaust flames, and approached
 >>close enough to wreck their radar gear."

 >Hi Sue,

 >I realize you're just getting this stuff from elsewhere so don't
 >take this personally - this is only meant as comments about the
 >sources you got this from.

 >This last line quoted above is nonsense - if they were
 >"attracted" by aircraft "exhaust flames" then they're using IR
 >(infrared) sensors not homing in on the aircraft radar. How were
 >they to "wreck" the radar gear? By making funny faces?
 >Considering that IR sensors in WWII would have been extremely
 >primitive and nearly useless (or in fact useless), the radar
 >homing development was a bit more advanced. Still, the range of
 >such a small disc would have been about zero, completely
 >useless.

 ><snip>

 >>Suddenly, Werner von Braun (who was immediately recruited to
 >>head up the think-tank A-bomb project at Los Alamos Labs) showed

 >This is false. Von Braun never worked at Los Alamos, he was a
 >rocket scientist! Sheesh, can't anyone even tell the difference
 >between rocketry and nuclear physics? And he certainly didn't
 >"head up" the Los Alamos lab. Oppenheimer headed up Los Alamos
 >then Norris Bradbury took over in 1945 and remained in charge
 >until he retired in 1970. Von Braun was stationed at Ft. Bliss,
 >Texas, from 1945 to 1950, then he was at Huntsville, Alabama,
 >from 1950 until he retired in 1972. There's no wiggle room
 >there! Doesn't anyone know or bother to look up basic military
 >or nuclear history?

 >>up safe-'n-sound in the US. He later headed the National
 >>Aeronautics and Space Administration, while his friend and
 >>cohort, Luftwaffe Maj. Gen. Walter Dornbreger, later became VP
 >>of Bell Aircraft Co. and Bell Aerosystems Co in the US (Alient
 >>Agenda, p. 67).

 >>Prior to reading this little piece of info yesterday, I thought
 >>the whole Nazi-UFO-post WWII-US technology exchange was just
 >>another conspiracy theory. Maybe it is. I certainly don't want
 >>to draw erroneous conclusions and make unsubstantiated claims
 >>about some vague technology exchange or complicity between the
 >>US (CIA) and the German (Nazi Gestapo) without more solid
 >>evidence. But, it is _very_ interesting. What other facts do we
 >>have?

 >These aren't 'facts' in the first place but fiction made up of
 >pieces of fact mixed in with a lot of fraud or nonsense.


Brad and List,

Unfortunately, these types of tall tales are out there, a small
helping of facts mixed in with a giant goulash of far out
conspiracy theories and just plain trash.

This particular story is very instructive. Many English
literature course start out with a reading of Nathaniel
Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. Why? Because there is nothing
subtle about the symbolism. Characters are name Roger
Chillingsworth and Arthur Dimsdale. Old Nat desires that we get
the picture without any doubts, so he hits us on the head with a
sledge hammer.

Previously, I had mentioned that most stories of this type have
a "tell", some out of place fact that gives the whole thing
away. The "tells" here in this story are equally as subtle as
Hawthorne's sledge hammer. Of course, von Braun had nothing to
do with Los Alamos, he was never head of NASA - he was promoted
to Deputy Associate Administrator. The people who want to
believe this sort of thing will never check dates, or facts, or
history, they will just believe any provocative thing placed in
front of them. The hunger for this sort of thing is insatiable,
that why there are hundreds of UFO conspriacy theories, most
contradicting all the others. That doesn't seem to matter. What
matters is they explain things in nice little neat package.

One would think the above is example is a good learning tool.
Since the errors are so glaringly obvious, it is an excellent
example for freshman ufology. At the very least it shows how to
find the tell.

Oh, and BTW Donberger was not in the German AF. And as I
remember Von Braun scientists and technicians were ordered into
the German home defense force to oppose the Soviet advance. They
had also received contradictory orders to evacuate. They obeyed
the latter. Von Braun ordered that the plans and documents for
the German research be hidden in a mine, also contrary to
orders. The US Army was able to seize about 100 more or less
intact V-2 rockets and get the plans out before the oncoming
Soviet forces overran the area. This was hardly an act of
technological exchange with the Nazis.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                         UFOs & Government Protocols

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 8 Jul 2001 00:05:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:00:49 -0400
Subject: UFOs & Government Protocols


Government Protocols about UFOs

In a discussion on the July 7, 2001 radio program 'Strange
Days... Indeed' I had a discussion with Dick Hall about
protocols in relation to the Daniel Sheehan case where he claims
he viewed classified Blue Book files in the basement of the
Madison Building in Washington D.C. in 1977. A number of readers
of Sheehan's account have stated it could not have occurred as
Sheehan claims the incident unfolded, because it did not follow
in many respects the protocols that normally would have taken
place in a similar type of case.

I made the statement that protocols are rarely if ever followed
in UFO cases handled by the government. I would add to this at
this point that on the low level "light in the sky" cases, the
government would follow a standard protocol. With any cases
where the integrity of the overall secrecy of the program is at
stake, the protocols would be entirely different from standard
government protocols.

Dick Hall seemed to be saying that in investigating UFO claims
it is important to compare the claim of the witness to protocols
commonly used in the government.

I would like readers to comment on where they stand.

To start it out I would propose, as example, that the following
items clearly illustrate that standard protocols are not used in
critically important UFO cases.

1) The entire concept of MJ-12 (and the entire supporting
structure under it) does not follow standard protocols.

2) The fact that not all UFO cases ended up in Project Blue Book
clearly show that protocols for collecting, evaluating, and
making cases public was not always followed. I would propose
that the cases that were handled with secondary protocols, were
the ones that provided the best evidence of the reality of the
UFO phenomena.

3) The destruction of the Roswell Air Base administrative and
outgoing messages without proper documentation of who destroyed
the records and under what authority, for the time period of the
Roswell incident shows clearly protocols are not always
followed. Again the key deciding fact appears to be the
important of the case or in this case records.

4) In 1959 the CIA and USAF investigated a woman by the name of
Mrs. Swan. She claimed to be in contact with an alien. She
taught the procedure of contact to a Navy officer who
demonstrated the technique at the CIA photographic lab where all
the U-2 photos were analyzed. CIA officer and director of the
lab, Art Lundahl, called in Blue Book head Robert Friend. Friend
watched the officer perform the contact. Friend was very
impressed with the demonstration calling it totally unique. He
wrote a report and suggested that the woman be investigated by
Duke University. At this point a General told him "another
agency was investigating, we should drop it." In this case, the
protocols for the handling of UFO information was clearly
changed to a higher different set of protocols.

5) The total lack of UFO records inside the executive branch
shows clearly that the protocols of the President being in
charge are being avoided, or the Presidential records are
elsewhere, which breaks with protocol for the release of
Presidential records.

6) Finally, in a non UFO situation, but involving a key UFO
personality, I present the words of General Nathan Twining
discussing protocols used during the development of the ICBM.
"We just moved in and violated all the rules. We didn't have the
procedures. They (Congress) knew the bills would be paid, and if
one were asked to do something by Schiever's group, a company
say, they knew they were going to get paid and everything was
alright. They went ahead and did the job." The interviewer
conducting the oral history for Columbia University asked, "the
statutes weren't actually changed then--." Twining replied, "no,
no." Asked by the interviewer, "just ignored?" Twining replied,
"That's right. That's right. We accomplished a great deal, I'll
tell you."

These are a few incidents off the top of my head. I am certain
there are dozens of other examples. I am not saying by this that
protocols should be totally ignored. They may aid in finding
documents, and may indicate trouble in a case. However, standard
government protocols can not be relied on to accurately evaluate
a case, because as the examples above show protocols are not
etched in stone. They can be changed in the blink of an eye.

"Go shit in your hat." -- The verbal response given by the
Pentagon military spokesman to the GOA when asked for
information on Roswell.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                        Re: Talk And Action - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 06:23:09 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:04:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Sparks


 >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).


Bob,

The system used by the Condon Committee at Harrisburg was
situated on top of a hospital building and was aimed straight
overhead at zenith. It did not cover the horizon (its coverage
started at 10� above the horizon). How on earth could it have
picked up _any_ UFO's from miles away, unless the UFO just
happened to fly overhead? The Condon Committee rightly
criticized the system as of little use for UFO detection and
tracking.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 8

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

From: Brad Sparks  <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 06:05:06 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:06:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Sparks


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:46:42 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>Date: 5 Jul 2001 05:38:31 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:28:07 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com


 ><snip>

 >Of course the fact that Walker was a Penn State prof has nothing
 >whatsoever to do with MJ-12 or the Government.

 >>Oberg said it was a Russian space vehicle. You guys should get
 >>your horses all running in the same direction. Walker refused to
 >>educate us on either meteors or Russian spacecraft when asked
 >>what is was.

 >Another example of your paranoia. You assume that every person
 >in the world who is skeptical of your saucer nonsense is somehow
 >in cahoots. James Oberg thought the Kecksburg fireball might
 >have been a Soviet (not Russian) spacecraft _before_ he read the
 >1966 scientific paper which described the photographic
 >triangulation of the December 9, 1965, meteor.


 >Clear skies,

 >Bob Young


Bob,

I agree with you that Kecksburg seems to be a meteor fireball
and that no credible evidence has been presented otherwise.
Lengthy postings have been made previously and there has been no
response by proponents, no credible evidence refuting the meteor
explanation.

Let's look at the pros and cons of the Walker story:

I personally do not believe the various stories told by
Sarbacher and Walker. There are credibility problems with
Sarbacher in 1950 swallowing the Scully book whole (see quote
below) and not raising a single question about the
pseudoscientific nonsense in it which to me damages his
credibility as a critical thinker and a scientist. Several
decades did not help him in that respect. Walker has credibility
problems too with his wild story of 4 aliens "integrating into
American life" plus other things mentioned in a Hesemann book
which I don't have.

Neither one claimed to have been first-hand witnesses of alleged
alien artifacts or bodies - Sarbacher's usual story is that he
didn't make it to the meeting(s) at Wright-Pat in 1950 where it
was to be discussed but that afterwards other participant(s)
told him about it, which is hearsay (I have heard that Sarbacher
may have once admitted firsthand handling but I don't know all
the details nor why he denied it in all other interviews).
Walker was Sarbacher's source for what happened at the meetings
according to Sarbacher (as told to Steinman in 1984), so that
would eliminate Sarbacher as an independent witness.
Nevertheless Sarbacher provides one countervailing benefit in
that certain elements of the UFO information presumably from
Walker were told to Wilbert Smith on Sept 15, 1950, and recorded
in writing at the time - so we can't blame the passage of time
for distortion of _all_ of the details. It's important to
analyze in detail this earliest contemporaneous evidence.

Sarbacher said to Smith as recorded in the 1950 memo that the
"facts" in Scully's book "are substantially correct." Which
facts? Why only "substantially" instead of "fully" or
"completely" or "nearly all" or some such? That's very ambiguous
but the subsequent details in the next followup questions
clarify what was meant as to which "facts" were "substantially
correct" and how much was "substantial."  Sarbacher's answers to
Smith's questions were that saucers "exist," that as for for
whether saucers operate on "magnetic principles" (as Scully
ludicrously alleged) we can't "duplicate their performance" -
this could actually be construed a denial of the essence of
Scully's crashed-saucer claims which were so heavily connected
with "magnetics" and that it was other "facts" about UFO
reality, high performance, ET origin, etc., that were
"substantially" correct. If Sarbacher was confirming that the US
Government or some official agency or panel thought UFO's were
ET, that might be sufficiently "substantial" for anyone, without
also requiring a saucer crash. As for whether they come from
another planet "All we know is, that we didn't make them, and
it's pretty certain they didn't originate on earth." Again only
to be "pretty certain" instead of "absolutely" certain, and to
say "All we know is ... we didn't make them," sounds like
inference based on accumulated case histories, not the
_absolute_ certainty one would expect from a crashed saucer
recovery with or without alien bodies.

All of these responses could easily come from official documents
and agency evaluations similar to the Twining letter of Sept 23,
1947, that flying discs are "real" and capable of extreme
performance beyond current capabilities, etc., and Project SIGN
conclusions that they therefore may be "inter-planetary
spaceships" (SIGN Interim Report, Nov 30, 1948, etc.). Further,
Sarbacher claimed that saucers were "the most highly classified
subject in the U.S. government at the present time" but said "I
can't tell you" the reason why. Well, if Sarbacher had actually
just confirmed the recovery of a crashed saucer a few seconds
earlier wouldn't that be an obvious reason he _could_ "tell"
Smith? This may be another indication that Sarbacher hadn't
confirmed anything about a crash recovery, only that the
government thought saucers were real and extraterrestrial, that
the exact reasoning for which was complex and highly classified
and not a simple "crashed-saucer recovery." It was not a passing
remark that perhaps was inadvertently overstated because Smith
and Sarbacher continued to discuss ways for Smith to get access
to the classified saucer data and Sarbacher helpfully suggested
a way to do it but continued to insist "I can't give you any
more at the present time."

Thus this contemporaneous 1950 info does not _directly_ confirm
the recovery of a crashed saucer and alien bodies - the
strongest statement is one claiming that the crackpot Scully
book's "facts" were "substantially correct," and that doesn't
inspire any confidence unless Scully's crashed-saucer claims
were actually being denied and it was other "facts" being
confirmed (see above and more below). It's still hearsay if the
alleged info actually came from Walker and it of course does not
confirm that Walker was a firsthand witness of anything. The
fact that electrical engineer Sarbacher didn't mention that
Scully's book was filled with pseudoscientific hogwash about
electromagnetism means that (a) it calls into question his
competence as an electrical engineer, since anyone knowledgeable
about electromagnetics would throw up reading the utter drivel
in Scully's book, or (b) that he rejected as non-factual the
alleged crashed-saucer "magnetic" research, thus casting doubt
on the alleged crash recovery or (c) it suggests he didn't
actually know what was in Scully's book, so that his reference
to its "facts" being "substantially correct" cannot be
considered confirmation of a crashed saucer recovery.

So there are at least 5 lines of evidence in Smith's
near-verbatim transcript of his conversation with Sarbacher on
Spt 15, 1950, and reflected in his declassified Top Secret
Canadian govt memo of Nov 21, 1950 (so there cannot be any doubt
about the genuineness and contemporaneity of these 1950
documents) that point away from a crashed saucer recovery and
merely point towards Sarbacher's belief that there was a highly
classified official conclusion by some US agency that UFO's were
extraterrestrial: (1) Sarbacher hedges in only "substantially"
confirming something in Scully's book rather than "fully" or
"nearly all," etc. (2) Sarbacher' s non-confirmation of Scully's
crashed-saucer "magnetic principles." (3) Sarbacher only "pretty
certain" saucers were ET instead of "absolutely certain" as one
would expect from a crash recovery. (4) Sarbacher "can't tell"
the reason for the high classification of saucers which would be
simple to tell _if_ he had already just said a crash had been
recovered. (5) Sarbacher's failure to pounce on the obvious
pseudoscience about electromagnetism, and science generally, in
the recounting of alleged government scientific analyses of
saucer wrecks throughout Scully's book.

The 1950 date for both Walker and Sarbacher is troubling because
it is when the US Government was deluged with crashed saucer
stories from Scully, or inspired by Scully, Silas Newton and
other wild storytellers and con men, so it makes sense that
government conferences might take place where some participants
with poor critical thinking skills might misconstrue discussion
of variants of the Scully stories or examination of poorly
worded documents as confirmation of the stories. I find it hard
to believe either Sarbacher or Walker were "caught off guard" by
someone asking them questions about crashed saucers given the
actual reactions reported (Walker's comments in Steinman's first
call on Aug 30, 1987, did not _directly_ even confirm that he
had examined crashed saucers or alien bodies, but referred
vaguely to "that subject matter," and the call is based on
Steinman's memory of it, not a tape, so we're forced to rely on
the accuracy of Steinman, which I'm not comfortable with). No
one reports that they stuttered, hemmed and hawed, got
flustered, or gave any obvious sign of being undone by the
sudden questions. It almost seems as if they had been casually
waiting for the question for decades.

That said, however, I must admit that I am deeply troubled by
the fact that two top rank scientists or engineers of the
caliber of Walker and Sarbacher should converge on such similar
stories or hints about alleged recovery of extraterrestrial
vehicles and bodies - albeit though it appears Walker was
Sarbacher's source and they were both initially prompted with
similar preconceived questions by the same UFOlogist - and that
after decades they should agree in pinpointing their DoD
Research & Development Board (RDB) experience in or around 1950
as the inception of it. Doesn't that trouble you, Bob? It
should.

Walker was President of Penn State Univ from 1956 to 1970, he
was a member of the National Academy of Engineering, and he
worked with the Institute for Defense Analysis from 1958 on,
becoming IDA board chairman in 1981. Sure, these aren't MJ-12
but it means he wasn't your usual nitwit, and he had plausible
government connections with the RDB and elsewhere. That should
bother you as much as it does me, granted though these later
prestigious positions were not the case in 1950 when the alleged
saucer crash and bodies were supposed to have been studied. With
such an outstanding background in military defense and
engineering it is hard to _entirely_ dismiss out of hand the
hints Walker gave in various interviews and letters in the 80's
as misconceptions, memory lapses, or gameplaying - as much as I
would like to dismiss it out of hand. There has to be some
explanation for all this. At the very least an official
deception op or disinformation program using Walker.

For some of Walker's background see the Penn State official website:
http://www.psu.edu/ur/about/history.html

Surely there must be records of meetings of the RDB's Guided
Missiles Committee at Wright-Patterson AFB in 1950, a committee
on which Sarbacher served. I doubt the whole RDB ever had such a
meeting there as it was too large and its admin staff was based
in Washington, but the GM Committee did occasionally and I think
I've seen passing references to it in declassified docs. Whether
the RDB Exec Secy Walker ever traveled out there for a GM
Committee meeting or RDB business is another issue and ought to
be discoverable in RDB records.

Whether Vannevar Bush had a role in directing all this as
claimed in the info Wilbert Smith got through defence liaison
attache Lt Col Bremner of the Canadian Embassy in 1950 is
another thorny issue since Bush had no longer headed the RDB
since 1948, he had very poor relations with President Truman,
and he had a long track record of interference with and
obstruction of advanced developments such ICBM's, space travel
and even the Manhattan "Project" during the war. All this makes
it highly unlikely that Truman would have appointed Bush to any
sensitive national security positions requiring utmost trust,
such as the crashed saucer investigation mentioned by Wilbert
Smith and claimed in MJ-12 documents. Bush's Dec 1945 testimony
in Congress knocking the possibility of ICBM's resulted in the
shutdown of rocket programs including the Atlas ICBM, setting
the U.S. so many years behind that the Soviets beat us into
space with Sputnik using its military ICBM, the R-7. In 1960
Bush was publicly opposing manned space travel in the NY Times.

More testimony as to Bush's low status with Truman comes from
Bush himself in interviews with Truman's military R&D and
science consultant William T. Golden in 1950, as well as
comments from other top scientists (Golden interviewed Walker
among many, but the report is not online). According to Nobel
Prize winning physicist Isidor I. Rabi, Bush was not even "a
leading scientist." On Golden's idea for appointing the first
Scientific Advisor to the President, for which Golden had been
shopping around for candidates, Golden rendered Rabi's comments
on Nov 16, 1950:

   "Neither would Bush be the man. He has enemies among scientists
   as well as among the military. He has respect for his competence
   in many ways but has questions as to his administrative ability,
   and points out that he is not a leading scientist as such."

Bush himself frankly told Golden of his "outsider" position in
government consulting and of his non-relations with Truman going
back to at least 1947 if not 1945, as Golden registered it on
Oct 24, 1950, which was compared with his "very close working
relationship" with Roosevelt. Considering that Bush knew that
Golden reported directly to Truman it is likely that the
situation was actually worse than he described (my comments and
corrections in brackets []):

   "Dr. Bush is now on the outside so far as Government scientific
   matters are concerned, a position of which he is very conscious
   and to which he referred time and time again. Thought [though]
   President Truman is very cordial to him, he does not call upon
   him for advice, though Dr. Bush has pointed this out to him on
   several occasions."

[If Truman "does not call upon him for advice" how could Truman
have called upon Bush for advice on sensitive crashed saucer
investigations ala Wilbert Smith and MJ-12?]

   "He feels that this is not because of any personal dislike but
   rather because President Truman just doesn't operate in this
   way - the contrast between President Truman and President
   Roosevelt is very strong in this respect. It is evident that
   Dr. Bush, who had a very close working relationship with
   President Roosevelt, does not approve of the present state of
   affairs."

[Vannevar Bush was clearly very unhappy with the way Truman was
treating him and he next gives a specific example of how Truman
snubbed him on a top-level scientific advisory project back in
1947, which typified his non-relations with Truman, and which
make it difficult to believe that Truman would have appointed
Bush in 1947 to a delicate national security matter involving
extraterrestrials:]

   "He mentioned,. for example, that when President Truman set up
   the President's Scientific Research Board - the so called
   Steelman Board - which prepared the Steelman report in 1947,
   he did not consult Dr. Bush either before naming the Board or in
   any in [of] its deliberations. Dr. Bush was on the Board along with
   a considerable number of other big names but he stated that he
   had played no part whatsoever in the Board's work, that in fact
   he did not see the report until it was in print. He certainly did
   not approve of the President's turning to John Steelman who, he
   said, knew nothing whatever of to [the] subject matter, to prepare
   this report, when he, Dr. Bush and other qualified individuals were
   available.

[Apparently Bush was lying about Steelman preparing the report
for Truman, instead of the actual scientists on the board, as we
find out next:]

   "In this connection, Mr. Kidd's comment to me the other day
   (Kidd worked on the staff that prepared the report) that John
   Steelman had played virtually no part whatever in the
   preparation of the report is interesting. Kidd said that he
   thought that Steelman had probably read the report after it
   was completed, but that was about all."

Interestingly, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Cal Tech physicists
Robert Bacher and Charles Lauritsen were critical of Bush's and
Berkner's handling of RDB - both being alleged MJ-12 members -
in Golden's interviews on Dec 21, 1950:

   "It was stated that Dr. Lloyd Berkner was very much
   responsible for the initial organization of RDB but it was
   said, sort of despite this, he has everyone's confidence. It
   seemed that their feeling was that the initial blame for
   faulty practical conception and bad organization lies with
   Berkner and that Bush just should have known better.... They
   fear literally the collapse of the RDB."

Getting back to Walker, I am not entirely comfortable with
simply rejecting the inferences from Walker's conversations and
interviews in the 80's despite questionable responses such as
the bizarre claim that 4 aliens that were "integrated into
American society." There is also a question as to whether we
would be justified in tracking back Sarbacher's 1980's
crashed-saucer responses to details in his 1950 interview with
Smith and any info he obtained from Walker at that time.

Sarbacher's Nov 29, 1983, letter to Steinman implies that
discussion of "extremely light and very tough" saucer materials
(which sounds like Scully) and insect-like alien bodies (which
sounds like the speculation in Cdr. McLaughlin's TRUE article of
March 1950 that insect-like bodies would be needed to withstand
high-g accelerations of saucers, and later repeated in Gerald
Heard's book) was a report or "impression" he got from "talking
with some of the people in the office" at the Pentagon in 1950.
Did any of this come from Walker and even if it did how much of
it was from discussion of press speculation in Scully and TRUE
magazine in 1950? How much might have come from Sarbacher
hearing a pro-ETH Estimate-of-the-Situation-type discussion from
Walker or others in 1950 and then in later years it all got
confused with discussions of Scully's book and TRUE magazine at
the same time in 1950? How much did RDB's approval of Project
Twinkle for the secret investigation and tracking of UFO's
influence RDB discussions of the reality of UFO's in 1950 given
the extremely tense security situation over troubling UFO
sightings near sensitive nuclear installations in the Southwest
and the successful photo-triangulation of the high-altitude
UFO's on April 27, 1950? If as Sarbacher told Steinman in 1984
he got his info from Walker who attended the classified saucer
meetings in 1950, then it all hinges on Walker. I think this is
a very fair and objective assessment, subject of course to
further evidence and logical interpretation. This is not a
satisfactory resolution of the matter and I'm not happy with it
- it is by no means disposed of.


Brad Sparks









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report'

From: Jean-Philippe Dain <aska@noos.fr>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:53:18 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:14:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report'


 >From: Richard Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:52:33 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:31:23 +0000
 >Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Nolane

 >It [the report] reflects more the views of the serviceman than
 >anything else. A short extract was used in the first Special
 >UFO issue of VSD in 1998 and the serviceman was very upset to
 >have not been cited as the author!

I am the author of the Directorate Military Intelligence (DRM)
report entitled "Implications militaires du phnomne des ovnis"
(Military Implications of the UFO Phenomenon).

Gildas Bourdais, in an IUR article entitled 'From GEPAN To
SEPRA: Official UFO Studies In France', wrote "A study was
produced at about the same time, but these were very limited
actions." -- IUR, WINTER 2000, p.13:

http://www.cufos.org/gepan.pdf

It was not properly a "study" but more exactly a synthesis note
concerning military aspect of the UFO Phenomenon. I doubt the
real capacity of Gildas Bourdais to evaluate consequences of
this report because he is outside the military administration.

The purpose of this document is not to persuade of the existence
of UFOs as extraterrestrial vehicles or make revelations about
extraterrestrial presence on Earth but to inform, with
objectivity, concerned people and administrations with a neutral
tone. The aim of such a report is not action but to give
elements of appreciation.

This report, approved by the Directorate of Military of
Intelligence, is not a subjective work. According Nolane's
allegations "I was very upset to have not been cited as the
author". It is not exact. I think VSD could precise
bibliographical references of the rewritten materials.

A revised version of "Military Implications of the UFO Phenomenon"
is now available in French at:

UFOTO, http://www.ufoto.fr.st, Articles/Other ressources.


Jean-Philippe Dain

Paris, France







                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

             Cydonian Imperative: 07-08-01 - High Acceptance of

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 23:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:19:29 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 07-08-01 - High Acceptance of


The Cydonian Imperative

7-8-01

New Poll Suggests High Acceptance of Artificiality in Cydonia

by Mac Tonnies

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

220 visitors to The Cydonian Imperative website recently took
part in an interesting, if unscientific, survey. When asked,
"Given the available evidence, do you think there are artificial
features in Cydonia?"

41% responded "Absolutely."

17% responded "Almost certainly."

17% responded "Probably."

15% responded "Maybe."

6% responded "Probably not."





                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

              Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 8 Jul 2001 13:08:41 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:37:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton


 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:32:57 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Date: 2 Jul 2001 18:11:20 -0700
 >>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >><snip>

 >>>Witnesses have told me that sliding their hand over the outside
 >>>surface of a UFO felt like gliding over a film of soap. Another
 >>>clue. Distilling all the clues from witness data alone can lead
 >>>to attempts at reverse engineering in my opinion.

 >Hiya Bill, hi Mac, All,

 >Mac writes:

 >>I agree. There are other aspects to close encounters that lend
 >>themselves nicely to nanotech interpretations, such as the
 >>often-reported "uniformly lit, seamless walls" described by
 >>abductees. UFOs themselves are very rarely described as having
 >>"rivets," and more often than not, doors which open cannot be
 >>discerned once closed, as if the seam is molecular.

 >I have reports of the same details (that Mac lists above) in
 >letters that abductees have sent to me over the years. (from all
 >around the world) Although what I'm about to say is information
 >that came up during a hypnosis session with Budd, it does
 >corroborate Mac's statements.
 >
 >Narrative from hypnosis session:
 >
 >I am floating up towards the bottom of a large silver disc. I am
 >accompanied by two small grey aliens. The object appears to be
 >'glowing' (as if the light was radiating _through_ the silver
 >metal surface... from inside.)
 >
 >When we were in close proximity to the craft I started to worry
 >that we were not going to stop in time to avoid smashing our
 >heads into it. Just then a 'line' appears (on the perfectly
 >smooth metal) and opens up into a rectangular portal large
 >enough to accommodate us.
 >
 >As I was approaching the disc there was no visual sign of a
 >"line" or any door. The surface had been smooth.
 >
 >>If some UFOs are in fact ET craft, then I predict they're more
 >>"grown" more than "built."
 >
 >I agree Mac. It's _pure speculation_ on my part but: I "think"
 >UFOs are part machine, part biological, and a form of artificial
 >intelligence that can be controlled/interacted with, using the
 >electromagnetic waves/thoughts of the operators brain.
 >(Telepathically responsive and controlled.) Movement at the
 >"speed of thought" would explain the bizarre instantaneous
 >acceleration, turns, leaps, and appearing to 'disappear' on the
 >spot (only to instantaneously appear in another part of the
 >sky,) that UFOs demonstrate.

 >*Please, it's all just speculation on my part. Don't ask me to
 >"prove" any of it. I offer it up here in the spirit of the
 >preceding discussion between Bill and Mac. I don't make any
 >false representations for its accuracy, but the details
 >mentioned here have surfaced during my own hypnosis sessions
 >with Budd.

 >The statement that UFOs are "grown" rather than manufactured may
 >be much closer to the truth than any one of us suspects.

Exactly, John. Something my contactee friend, Orfeo Angelucci,
wrote in his book 'Secret of the Saucers (1955)". He said that





                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

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

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 17:14:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:41:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:28:07 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:40:41 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:58:01 -0000

 >>>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

David Rudiak:
 >>>>Walker at one point admitted to going to the
 >>>>crash site on Dec. 9 along with two off-duty military people.

 ><snip>

Bob Young:

 >>>"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.

Penn State Bob, 100+ miles from Kecksberg, and nothing like an
Interstate linking the two. It was mostly two lane highway in
the northern Appalachians, not exactly a recreational drive just
"for the fun of it."

Walker was also President of Penn State. One biography called
him one of the busiest men in America. Yet, according to you,
this extremely busy man traveled 100+ miles in the middle of the
night "after hearing the bizarre PR screw-up about this
fruitless search on the radio."

This is the sort of strange, laughable reasoning we have come to expect from
Bob Young. But to ordinary folks, it is obvious that Walker must have had
some compelling reason to make such a trip, rather than being out on some
lark. My God, man, Walker was a staid, middle-aged man with lots of
responsibilities, not some teenager out joyriding!

Richard Hall:

 >>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?

Bob Young:

 >Off-duty means on one's own time. I think that it is probable
 >that he was also on his own time. There isn't a shred of
 >evidence that he wasn't. According to the tale here

The "tale" here is Walker admitting to being at the Kecksberg
crash site when he was asked about it, and saying he was with
two off-duty military people.

 >he was in
 >the crowd at the site of the search. Why would he be in the
 >crowd with a couple military people off-duty if he was a leading
 >figure in the recovery of an alien spaceship? Because it is
 >another example of divergent information being accepted by
 >believers to make the stories fit.

Again Bob Young misses the point. Why would he go to Kecksberg
at all, if not for some important reason? Do he really think
mere radio reports would cause him to drop everything and rush
off into the darkness on a long trip? Show a little common sense
here.

Walker was no "gullible UFO buff" and no meteor chaser. He would
only go out there on the basis of something far more solid than
radio reports. He would only go out there if it was deemed
necessary, e.g., if he were a military or intelligence
consultant and somebody called him on the phone and asked him to
go out there.

 >The Kecksburg saucer crash was a meteor, it was even
 >photographed with a probable orbit determined.

Have you actually looked at the article in the R.A.S.C. Journal
(Royal Astronomical Society of Canada)? If you did, you will
notice the following methodology and assumptions made in the
article that could potentially affect any calculated trajectory:

The smoke-trail of a fireball was photographed from two slightly
different vantage points about 6 miles apart in the northwestern
Detroit area. From a map in the article showing the locations of
the where the photographs were taken and where the authors
triangulated the object, the fireball would have been about 30
miles southeast from the two photographers at an altitude of
about 14 to 20 miles, or a total distance of roughly 36 miles.

This creates the first potential problem for a triangulation.
Ideally one would wish for more widely separated triangulation
points or have a third, to reduce possible triangulation errors.
But obviously the authors had to work with the data at hand.
Calculated distances and trajectories could be significantly in
error for even small errors in the triangulation angles. Sources
of such errors are discussed below.

Second, the authors used only two of 6 available photos, one
from a set of two from one location, and one from a set of four
from another. From these two photos, they selected only two
"events" in the smoke trail, one being where the fireball
apparently exploded. From this they triangulated only two points
on the object's trajectory. As any one who has ever submitted a
paper for peer review can tell you, having only two points to
determine a line is fraught with danger and liable to get one's
paper bounced back as incomplete or statistically unsound. At
the very least, some sort of error bars should be placed around
the points; which oddly was not done in this paper.

If you think about it a moment, one really isn't dealing with
two localized points, but with two parallel lines representing
the range of potential error arising from triangulation. In
infinite number of straight lines or trajectories can be drawn
through these two lines by choosing an arbitrary point on each
error line. If one was to choose points from the two extremes of
the two error bars, the resulting trajectories would vary
greatly in direction.

What were some possible sources of error? Again if you read the
paper, the authors state that the photos were taken at different
times, which could only be estimated from the photographers'
accounts well after-the-fact. The authors provide the range of
estimated times between photographer A taking his 2 pictures and
photographer B his four pictures, but fail to provide the
estimated time between the two photos actually used.

The authors then state that visual inspection of the photos
indicated that "the total drift of the cloud was minimal,
although disintegration of the train is evident." This is very
loose language for a scientific article. What exactly does
"minimal" mean quantitatively and how exactly was this
determined? Given the sparse details in the article, the two
used photos could have been separated in time anywhere from
about half a minute to a minute. High altitude winds could cause
significant trail drift in that space of time that might be very
difficult to detect.

Furthermore, one would expect differential winds or wind sheer
for the two widely separated altitudes (about 6 miles according
to their calculations). This could cause a highly significant
"torquing" of the smoke trail between photos and drastically
affect both the calculated horizontal and vertical trajectories.
Did the authors take this into account in their calculations?
Did they consult high altitude wind data that might be available
to see what the wind speeds and directions were at the various
altitudes to estimate what degree of wind sheer that might have
existed? If they did, they don't mention it, in this paper that
is remarkably thin for a scientific journal in it's explanation
of methodology.

Finally we get to the authors' estimates of object speed. Did
they use the photographs to determine this? They did not.
Instead they relied on estimates of the events total duration
from the two photographers alone, even though the paper says
they received completed questioners from 66 eyewitnesses total.
As they explain:

"The velocity of the meteorite as it passed through the earth's
atmosphere is uncertain. Relying on the duration estimates of
Messrs. Wright and Champine, who in the opinion of the writers
were best qualified to judge, an apparent velocity of 14.5
km/sec was adopted as the value to be used in the orbit
calculation."

OK, so what were the duration estimates of the two Messrs., and
why were they deemed more reliable than the other 64 guys who
turned in data? Again, none of this is explained.

It's also highly ironic that this part of the paper is based on
the bane of Bob Young, namely eyewitness testimony. As some of
us well know on Updates, Bob loves to quote from astronomer
Frank Drake's own seriously flawed article in "UFOs, A
Scientific Debate" where Drake claims "that a witness's memory
of such exotic events [meteor fireballs] fades very quickly.
�after five days people report more imagination than truth."

Bob Young seems to accept Drake's hyperbole as gospel truth. Yet
what have we here? The time between photos used to calculate
trajectory is based strictly on witness estimates of time and
duration well after the event. Furthermore, so is the estimate
of fireball speed. Oops!

The point is that the article, as written, has a lot of serious
problems with it from a scientific point of view. From what is
described, there could be a number of errors in methodology that
could seriously affect calculations of trajectory and speed.
Under such circumstances, the conclusions of the authors should
be viewed with great caution.

One conclusion was that the object was on a steep downward
trajectory. Another was that the trajectory was towards the
northeast. A third is that the event ended in the
Detroit/Windsor area with an explosion of the fireball. A fourth
is the high speed of the object.

But other evidence in this case, some of it presented below,
indicates that some part of the object continued on well towards
the east and southeast for a prolonged period of time on a
relatively flat trajectory. It dropped debris and started
multiple fires, particularly in Elyria, Ohio near Cleveland, 70
to 80 miles to the ESE from where the fireball allegedly ended
its trek. The smoke trail and explosion photographed over
Detroit/Windsor could have been another chunk of debris that
broke off earlier. But that doesn't mean, this was the end of
it.

 >The whole
 >Kecksburg recovery tale surfaced years later after publicity.
 >It's a joke, but the joke has really been on the believers who
 >have messaged every story they stirred up to come up with an
 >exciting saucer crash and Government conspiracy tale. They, and
 >everybody else who has been convinced by them that they must
 >have really witnesses something unusual, have been taken for a
 >ride for twenty years by a tiny handful of jokesters who are
 >having a great time.

One of the jokesters having a great time is debunker Bob Young.
We have often witnessed Messr. Young ignoring 90% of the actual
case data and presenting only the other 10% which he thinks fits
some mundane theory of an event. Recently he did that with the
famous 1966 Ravenna, Ohio multi-witness sighting, which he tried
to explain away as policemen chasing after Venus because it was
distorted by their astigmatism and eyelashes - really!

Here he begins by stating that the President of Penn State, Eric
Walker, would travel a great distance at night on some sort of
whim or for "the fun of it" because of distorted radio reports
of a crash recovery at Kecksberg. Of course, this doesn't make
much sense, but that doesn't stop Bob Young from asserting his
screwy theory as if it were fact.

Bob Young has also in the past tried to explain away part of the
Kecksberg case as sightings of - you guessed it - Venus. Well
Venus was in the sky at the time, but unfortunately for Bob, the
fireball occurred just minutes before sunset. Venus would not
have been visible yet. But heck, visibility, shmisibility, this
is debunking. Who cares?

But enough debunking the debunkers for now. What are some of the
details of the Kecksberg case that Bob Young leaves out that
indicate this can't be easily explained as just some meteor that
ended its voyage over Detroit?

Let's start with newspaper reports of shock waves being reported
in western Pennsylvania. Shock waves, of course, could be
created by a meteor. But this means the fireball would have had
to travel some 200 miles beyond Detroit on a fairly shallow
trajectory in a generally southeasterly direction. That's in
direct conflict with the RASC Journal article of a steep,
northeasterly direction. That's why I went into nauseating
detail about the shortcomings of the article, to point out that
their calculated trajectory could be seriously in error.

Is there other evidence that something continued beyond Detroit?
Yes there is, in the form of eyewitness reports and even
physical debris that was recovered. E.g., the newspapers also
widely reported that a weather observer in Columbus, Ohio saw
the fireball EAST of his position while he was making an
observation. But Columbus is about 160 miles due SOUTH of
Detroit where the event supposedly ended. A weather observer who
can't distinguish east from north would be pretty incompetent.
Whatever the weather observer spotted, it was approximately 200
miles southeast of Detroit.

Newspapers also reported a woman and man seeing a chunk of
debris coming down in Elyria, Ohio, about 15 miles west of
Cleveland. Furthermore, the Elyria fire department reported
putting out 10 brush fires that broke out in Elyria as a result
of the debris coming down. Elyria is about 80 miles southeast of
Detroit/Windsor. Draw a line between Detroit and Elyria and you
have a southeast trajectory that passes south of Pittsburgh
right about where Kecksberg is.

When I was in Cleveland a few years ago, I drove out to Elyria
to have a look at the local newspaper (the
"Chronicle-Telegram"). The December 10 edition, as expected,
reported the grass fires, but said no debris had been recovered.

That changed dramatically the next day when the front page story
reported that 3 Elyria boys ages 10 and 11 had found 10 pieces
of strange metallic debris which was believed to have come from
the meteor. One photo showed the 3 boys holding the debris, and
a blowup showed two of the chunks in close-up. The newspaper
said the pieces had a metallic blue color "at first glance
resembling 'clinkers' from a coal furnace." It added, "Closer
examination reveals unusual gaseous-formed 'bubbles' on the
surface and extending into the heart of the material." (The
pictures clearly showed the large nodules or bubbles covering
the chunks of debris.)

What happened to this debris? According to the
Chronicle-Telegram, arrangements were being made to have the
pieces examined by astronomers and chemists. One group
specifically mentioned was NASA, which maintains a facility at
the nearby Cleveland airport even today. This detail becomes
important in a moment.

One of the boys was also reported to have seen the fireball
"streak across the sky." When I got home from my trip, I called
the "boy" in Elyria (now a middle-aged man, of course), who
confirmed that he had seen the fireball pass nearly overhead.
He saw the fireball approaching and estimated that he may have
seen it for as long as 20 seconds.

He described the color of the pieces as resembling steel slag
(he later worked in the nearby steel mills, he said), burned
brownish like welding scaling, but with a deep midnight blue to
it. He further described it as very smooth. They could break it,
but not easily, and the corners of the break were rounded.

As to what happened to the fragments, he said several white cars
with NASA insignias on them pulled up the next day and took all
their samples for examination. They never got them back. All
they were told after that was that the pieces were nothing but
foundry slag.

"No way!" he told me angrily. "I saw those pieces fall out of
the sky." (or words close to these) He said the families also
checked to see if maybe there had been a nearby foundry
explosion or something similar that might account for the
pieces, but could find nothing like that.

In case anyone wants to dismiss the testimony of a then 10 year
old boy, it bears repeat mention that an Elyria woman was also
widely reported as saying she saw a flaming chunk come down (she
also gave the name of a friend who was with her), and also that
the Elyria fire department attributed multiple grass fires to
hot debris raining down as well. So _something_ obviously did
come down in Elyria. The boys didn't just make it up or try to
pass off foundry slag as meteorite chunks.

This clear physical evidence is also in direct contradiction to
the RASC Journal article that claimed that no material was ever
found and that the event ended with the explosion of the meteor
just south of Detroit/Windsor. It also calls into question their
steep northeast trajectory. How then could material rain down in
Elyria to the southeast 70 to 80 miles away?

It is also not easy to account for the physical descriptions and
photos of the debris and write them off to meteorite fragments.
I'm no meteor expert, but I've never heard colors or texture
attributed to meteorite fragments like those in the newspaper
article and the eyewitness. The large bubbles described and
shown in the photos are difficult to account for, though it does
sound like it could be caused by molten material bubbling off
the surface of some large piece and then falling through the air
to the ground.

Another problem with a simple meteor theory is the period of
time over which various people reported seeing the fireball.
Some newspapers gave a 10 minute period, others 7 minutes. E.g.,
the Pittsburgh Press on December 10 wrote: "Sighting times of
4:40 pm in Indiana, 4:44 pm in Oberlin, Ohio, and 4:50 p.m in
Erie indicated a west-to-east line of flight of the object."

The 4:44 time in Oberlin was from an FAA facility and seems
pretty firm. Also it was later determined that a nearby seismic
facility reported a shock wave that would have placed the event
over Detroit at around 4:43. The problems are with the accuracy
of the other times. The 4:50 time in Erie apparently came from a
television reporter. The origin of the 4:40 time in Indiana
wasn't specified.

A multi-minute duration for the fireball would basically rule
out a meteor origin. Grant Cameron and I a few years ago tried
to firm up the times by inquiring into old seismic data, hoping,
e.g., that the shock wave in western Pennsylvania reported in
the newspapers might have been recorded as well. That could be
used to pin down the time. Unfortunately, we were told that data
not directly attributable to earthquakes would have been thrown
out a long time ago.

Now to Kecksberg. Why the heck was a search started in the woods
near Kecksberg anyway? The reason is because multiple local
residents reported something coming down there. The Pittsburgh
Press reported it this way:

"The Kecksberg search got under way about 6 p.m. after seven
residents fo the community of 500 reported seeing a smoldering
object crash to the earth."

"Mrs. Arnold Kalp, of RD 1 Acme, in the Kecksberg area, said she
saw blue smoke rising from the woods about a half mile from here
home."

""It seemed like it might have been an ordinary fire, but in
fives minutes the smoke was gone.""

"She said her son, Nevin, 8, told her he saw an object streaking
through the sky "like a star on fire.""

"Several residents in the area reported hearing a 'thud', and
one man said it shook his garage."

As to Bob Young's claims in previous Update posts that the
newspapers never reported any Army involvement, that is simply
not true. To continue from the Press story:

"State Police from Greensburg, _Army_ and Air Force officials,
scientists, and volunteer firemen from Kecksberg conducted the
search in a 75 acre area under a full moon."

"�In Washington today, the Air Force said a three-man team from
its 662nd Radar Squadron at Oakdale, Pa. could find no remnants
of the fireball."

According to Bob Young, the 3-man team Air Force team was the
only military presence at Kecksberg.

In case anyone thinks the Press was the only paper to report
Army involvement, that also isn't the case. E.g. the
Philadelphia Inquirer on Dec. 10 started their article this way:


"PITTSBURGH, Dec. 9 -- A brilliant ball of fire which was seen
streaking across seven States and Canada on Thursday night
crashed into woods 20 miles south of here. Flaming objects
falling off from it touched off fires in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and
Michigan."

"The _Army_ and State Police sealed off an area near Midland,
Pa., on the Pennsylvania-Ohio border and another area in Lorain
County, Ohio, where falling debris was reported."

"The areas were sealed with the explanation "There is an
unidentified flying object in the woods."


It also added later that "In Pennsylvania, State Police were
swamped with calls about the 'strange fiery object.'"

A low-flying fireball just above the horizon, 200 miles away,
still in daylight, and lasting only a few seconds seems unlikely
to have triggered such a response. Furthermore, as to Bob
Young's usual sign-off of "clear skies", the skies weren't so
clear that day. It was dull and overcast in western
Pennsylvania, making it even less likely that a meteor fireball
from 200 miles away would draw people's attention.

In addition, there are the reported shock waves in western
Pennsylvania, also impossible to account for, unless a hydrogen
bomb detonated over Detroit. Again we have clear evidence that
something proceeded well beyond Detroit into Pennsylvania. The
Army took it seriously enough to be involved in a search near
Kecksberg and to seal off the area.

What I've presented here is just a tiny bit of the evidence
that's been accumulated about Kecksberg that strongly indicates
a far more complex and serious event than the one Bob Young
tries to oversimplify as nothing but an overblown meteor
fireball sighting from far away coupled with a few headline





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                      Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs - Part 1

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 8 Jul 2001 15:50:57 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:45:22 -0400
Subject: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs - Part 1


Records of the Clinton OSTP Related to UFOs and
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Part 1

In January 2001, the Office of Science and Technology Policy
Released to me 991 pages of documents related to an Freedom of
Information Request asking for documents related to UFOs,
extraterrestrial intelligence, and the Rockefeller Initiative.

The documents consist of all the correspondence coming into and
going from the office on the requested subjects. There is some
internal correspondence on these issues. All FOIAs filed in the
areas of UFOs were included in the package. Most of the 991
pages are related to the Rockefeller Disclosure Initiative set
up to gain declassification of all UFO files held by the United
States government.

I should note, at this point to anyone thinking of paying the
$135.00 to obtain this set of documents, that the documents
are very poorly filed compared to the excellent list of
documents compiled by the FOIA officer Barbara Ann Ferguson.
The first set of documents I received were short almost 300
pages of the documents on the list. After letters to straighten
this out I discovered 170 pages still missing.

The 88 documents that make up the set are numbered 1 through
88. I highly suggest that anyone requesting the documents check
the number against the document, as well as checking to see
that the document number fits the document described. Many
documents I received had two different numbers - which means
one of the two documents you ordered isn't there. I would
seriously suggest a very careful checking of the entire package
once you get it. This will take many hours.

This paper is an attempt to provide an overview of what is
contained in the collection, as well as provide a bit of
background of what was going on related to UFOs in the Clinton
White House outside of these documents which only with The
Office of Science and Technology Policy, which is only one arm
of the White House. Anyone wanting a copy of this paper
complete with the footnotes should contact me by e-mail at
sqquishy@altavista.com. I will provide you a copy in Word or
Word Perfect formats.

The Documents

The first document to begin what would become a long flurry of
documents into and out of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy was written by Henry L. Diamond, attorney for Laurance
S. Rockefeller. It was dated March 29, 1993.

The Letter states that Rockefeller, who was described by
Diamond as "a leading U.S. conservationist, businessman, and
philanthropist," was "anxious to have a brief meeting with Dr.
Gibbons (Special Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology) to discuss the potential availability of government
information about unidentified flying objects and
extraterrestrial life."

Rockefeller according to the Diamond letter was taking this
preliminary step in preparation for "an approach to President
Clinton on this subject." Rockefeller, the letter said, was
prepared to tell President Clinton that

"there is a belief in many quarters that the government has
long held classified information regarding UFOs which has not
been released and that the failure to do so has brought about
unnecessary suspicion and distrust. Many believe that the
release of such information, if it exists, on a basis
consistent with national security considerations, would be a
significant gesture which would increase confidence in
government."

The proposal of a preliminary meeting with Gibbons was to
discuss the issues, thus making "his (Rockefeller)
communication to the President as useful as possible." Diamond
proposed a 45 minute meeting that would be attended by himself,
Rockefeller, and Scott Jones, then President of the Human
Potential Foundation.

There are no documents in the OSTP package which show Dr.
Gibbons accepting the Rockefeller offer for a briefing, but he
did accept. On April 14, 1993, at 7:30 am Laurance Rockefeller
and Dr. Scott Jones sat across from Dr. Jack Gibbons and his
aide Skip Johns and briefed him on the current state of
Ufology, with the help of a briefing paper titled "The Matrix
of UFO Beliefs." The paper had been written by award winning
journalist Richard Farley. Farley wrote the paper based on his
20 years of active inquiry into 'UFO' phenomena. The main
contributors to Farley's thinking were J. Allen Hynek, and
prominent Ufologist Jacques Vallee.

A second briefing paper was prepared for this Gibbons briefing
by Rockefeller. This paper was prepared at the direction of the
Central Intelligence Agency. It involved what amounted to a
"using" of UFO researcher Bruce Maccabee to prepare the paper
in record time. It will be discussed later related to
correspondence sent to Gibbons office by Dick Farley. Enclosed
with Farley correspondence were enclosures which clearly
describe what happened.

There were no actual OSTP records of the briefing in the FOIA
package, other than a copy of the briefing paper "The Matrix of
UFO Beliefs". Strangely, Richard Farley stated to this author
that the copy of the "Matrix of UFO Beliefs" found in the OSTP
records is not the same one he wrote. It had been changed, he
stated, by Scott Jones for an altered version. Farley has also
made this claim elsewhere. The only other item found in the
OSTP files is the briefing paper written by Bruce Maccabee, but
it will be discussed later.

The records we have telling us what happened at the briefing
come from outside the White House. Those involve accounts from
briefers Laurance Rockefeller, Scott Jones, and Richard Farley
who were involved in writing the briefing.

On April 21, 1993, one week after the briefing took place,
Rockefeller wrote Gibbons thanking him for the chance to
present their case for "UFOs and Extraterrestrial
Intelligence." As a follow-up to what they had discussed in the
briefing, Rockefeller stated that Scott Jones would be
providing an annotated bibliography as important background
source material on UFOs. According to Rockefeller's letter,
Gibbons had apparently welcomed the idea. Rockefeller also
figured that the background material would be important because
during the briefing Dr. Gibbons had related that in three
months as Science Advisor to the President he had not "learned
that the United States government has a body of knowledge on
UFOs or ETI that is being withheld from the public."

In a May 26th letter from Gibbons to Scott Jones, Gibbons
revealed not only had he been provided with a bibliography, he
was provided with a number of books from the Jones Foundation
Library. Gibbons indicated that he was reading the UFO books
and would return them when he was done.

Rockefeller also revealed in the April 21st letter that Gibbons
had, following the briefing, recommended that the UFO
government issue be sent to Secretary of Defense Les Aspin for
action. Despite Gibbons suggestion that Defense handle the UFO
issue, there was an indication that aides in Gibbons office
were interested in the UFO issue. (Documents found later in the
OSTP package show that Aspin (at the advising of Melvin Laird,
former Secretary of Defense in the Nixon Administration) sent
the UFO issue back to OSTP and the President for action.

In one of the concluding paragraphs of the April 13th letter,
Rockefeller notified Gibbons that Scott Jones was " planning to
convene a small group to discuss the state of knowledge about
UFOs and ETI in an informal, non-public way." The suggestion
was made that Gibbons or one of his staffers would be welcome
as an observer. One of Gibbons staff members scribbled in the
margin of the letter, "I would be willing to go if JHG (John H.
Gibbons) OKs it."

The official invitation to discuss UFOs privately came in an
August 4, 1993 letter from Rockefeller to Gibbons. The informal
roundtable discussion was to be held September 13-15, 1993 at
Rockefeller's JY Ranch in the Teton Forest near Jackson Hole
Wyoming. As well as a representative from Gibbons office,
Rockefeller had invited people like Dr. Steven Greer, Dr. John
Mack, Dr. Peter Sturrock, Linda Moulton Howe, Jill Tarter, and
Dr. Leo Sprinkle.

Skip Johns, a key Gibbons staffer, who had been present with
Gibbons during the initial Rockefeller UFO briefing, wrote a
note on top of the document to Tim, another Gibbons staffer,
"JHG would like to discuss with you." Unfortunately according
to one of those attending, Bruce Maccabee, no one from the
Science Advisor's office attended.

On October 20, 1993 Gibbons and Rockefeller's lawyer Henry
Diamond met and talked at the Environmental Law Institute.
Diamond wrote a letter to Gibbons informing him that Mr.
Rockefeller would like to have another meeting to discuss UFOs.

Shortly after this October request by Diamond another UFO
researcher Steven Greer, International Director of Center for
the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI), made his
move, to like Rockefeller, brief the Clinton White House people
on the UFO subject, and achieve two of the same goals at were
being promoted by Rockefeller. 1) Attain a complete
declassification of all UFO documents within the U.S.
Government 2) Gain amnesty for witnesses involved in classified
UFO activities, so they could tell their stories without fear
of reprisal.

On December 13, 1993 Dr. Greer met with the "principal advisor
to the President for Intelligence matters related to national
security,"  DCI Director James Woolsey. The meeting was set up
through the cooperation of John L. Petersen, who had worked in
the Office of the Secretary of defense, and on the National
Security Staff at the White House. At the time of the briefing,
Petersen was the director of the Washington area think tank
known as the Arlington Institute.

Like Dr. Gibbons, Clinton's DCI was open to a briefing on UFOs.
There were two reasons for this. James Woolsey and his wife,
Sue Woolsey (Chief Operating Officer of the National Academy of
Sciences) had experienced a daylight sighting in New Hampshire
in the late sixties. In addition, Woolsey, was attempting to
open things up. Only weeks before, On November 30, James
Woolsey had appeared on CNN's Larry King Show. There, Gibbons
had stated that the new Clinton administration "wished to
disclose historical material in a spirit of new openness."

The briefing of Woolsey and is wife by Dr. Greer lasted three
hours, a very long time in the world of briefings. It led to
Woolsey to request information from within the CIA about
certain cases that had been provided to him by Greer. Woolsey
was unable to obtain any further material. What Woolsey
received in reply to his queries has often been described as
the " empty file syndrome."

Even though Woolsey enjoyed more power to get the answers to
the UFO mystery than did jack Gibbons, he was cut off from
President Clinton. Part of his isolation was caused, in Woolsey
opinion, to the fact that Clinton's interests lay in domestic
political issues, and not intelligence matters.

Woolsey reportedly only met in person with the President twice
during his entire tenure at DCI. Woolsey described his weakened
position. " I sort of wandered in," Woolsey said of his job at
DCI, "and wandered out." When a man crashed a plane on the
White House lawn, the joke went around the CIA that it was
Woolsey trying to get a meeting with the President. Years after
Woolsey left the Clinton White House, even he took to telling
the plane joke.

Woolsey's UFO requests also led to a new study of the CIA
records related to the UFO phenomena. In 1997, the CIA
published the results of this study in their classified
publication Studies in Intelligence. The paper was titled,
"CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-1990." It was authored
by CIA historian Gerald K. Haines. The unclassified version
published a couple years later received wide distribution on
the Internet.

Greer went on to brief many of the people inside the Clinton
White House. From the apparent evidence he was much more active
evangelizing White House staff on UFOs than were Jones and
Rockefeller. During one interview he mentioned some of the
people inside the Clinton Administration who had been briefed
by himself or his briefing team:

"There were many briefing materials that were given, not only
to the CIA Director Mr. Woolsey, but to other senior members of
the Clinton administration. Members of our team of the CSETI
Project Starlight team were able to provide briefing materials
to and meetings with the Presidents' closest friends, and the
Bruce Lindsay family. Bruce Lindsay being the President's sort
of senior counselor in the White House, but also one of his
closest friends...We were also able to do a similar briefing
materials and conveyed them to the President's Science Advisor,
to Tony Lake, who at the time was the National Security Advisor
to the President.....to senior people in Al Gore's office, his
Chief of Staff, as well as Al Gore, and many of his personal
friends."

Despite these many briefing, Dr. Greer is only mentioned in
passing in the 1,000 pages of material released by the OSTP.
This is probably accounted for by the fact that his contacts
were outside the OSTP, and the record of his contacts will not
be available until 2006 when the Clinton files become subject
to FOIA.

The lack of OSTP references to Greer does not mean that Greer
and Rockefeller did not cross paths. Greer did have contact
with Laurance Rockefeller. The complete record of their
association is not totally know yet. What is know is that Greer
did at one time have close connections with Dr. Gibbons UFO
briefer Laurance Rockefeller. A few months before doing his
briefing with Woolsey, Dr. Greer had met with Rockefeller at
his ranch near Jackson Hole, Wyoming. During this meeting Dr.
Greer provided Rockefeller with material that Rockefeller had
requested for a briefing of President Clinton (which did occur
in August 1995). Dr. Greer provided him "a package of evidence,
assessments and other documents."

He and Rockefeller had been working together since February
1994. He had provided Rockefeller with the latest UFO
information being received from top level deep-throats in
contact with CSETI. Rockefeller, in exchange, provided funding
for Dr. Greer's The Project Starlight Coalition (PSC). The PSC
was a group CSETI had formed in July 1993. Greer described it
as "a voluntary association of researchers, scientists, world
leaders and concerned citizens who are dedicated to effecting a
non-harmful disclosure on the UFO/ETI (Unidentified Flying
Object / Extraterrestrial Intelligence) issue in the near
future."

The Roswell Search

Diamond wrote Gibbons in October 1994 asking for a new
face-to-face meeting for Mr. Rockefeller. Once again, it
appeared that what Rockefeller wanted - Rockefeller got. On
February 4, 1994 Rockefeller and Scott Jones met again with
Gibbons and his staff. By this time, the responsibility for
dealing with Rockefeller and his UFO Disclosure Initiative had
moved back from the Defense Department to Gibbons Office for
Science and Technology Policy.

During this February 94 meeting Gibbons made a stunning
proposal related to Rockefeller's main request that all UFO
information be declassified and released. Rockefeller referred
to the Gibbons proposal in a follow up letter.

"We believe that your approach of starting by addressing a
specific incident is an important and reasonable way to begin
the process of declassification in this area."

It was an opportunity that Rockefeller's made the most of. He
fully encouraged Gibbons to work to declassify Roswell, the
"mother of all UFO cases." Rockefeller wrote,

The July 1947 Roswell incident would be a logical and
challenging place to start. While much in the public sector has
been written about it, the government has had nothing to say
about it after the original press release saying that a flying
disc had been recovered was retracted. The public record of
this incident has been thoroughly analyzed. Further information
depends upon access to classified information.

Many are convinced that Roswell marks the beginning of
government secrecy about UFOs. However, whatever the truth of
Roswell, a definite statement about it from the government
would be very important. If it actually was UFO related, it
could be used to start the process of reversing the
government's 40 plus years of denial on the subject. If it can
fully be explained as not UFO related, it would be a
significant contribution to the field, and perhaps even
contribute to more rigor in research on the subject.

If this specific project initiative is successful, it will
become an important prototype for the release of all UFO
information. Obviously, the means of carrying out this
event-related review is up to you. However, to the extent we
can be helpful, we want to be.

Rockefeller added that "Scott Jones and his associates are
quite current on research accomplished on this subject. I have
asked that they be available to assist your investigation in
any appropriate way."

In addition to "lifting classification about Roswell"
Rockefeller asked that President Clinton "grant amnesty on an
individual basis to allow those with knowledge of the incident
to speak without fear of prosecution."

Finally, Rockefeller asked that Gibbons "designate a staff
person for continuing contact." In the meantime, and under
these circumstances, Rockefeller promised that he would hold
off on the letter he was drafting addressed to President
Clinton.

This "Clinton draft letter" popped up over and over in the
1,000 pages released by OSTP, from this first reference in 1994
to early 1996 when it appeared the letter might have been sent
to the President. It appeared attached to Gibbons letters, in
various states of draft. In one draft, discussed later, Gibbons
or one of his staff actually made comments in the margin about
various ideas expressed in the letter.

Attached to this Gibbons letter, was an even more interesting
letter to Anne Bartley who appeared to have been one of the
Gibbons staffers in the room during the February 4th meeting.
In this letter, Rockefeller makes an even more stunning
disclosure - it was the President's Science Advisor Jack
Gibbons who had proposed making Roswell a test case for new
declassification procedures. Rockefeller wrote,

Jack's suggestion to make the 1947 event a test case of the
Government's willingness to review classification procedures
under the President's recent Executive Order was a very good
one.

Like with the letter to Gibbons, Rockefeller dangled the
proposed letter to Clinton, "my idea of the letter to the
President seems best tabled and for us to concentrate on Jack
Gibbons and follow through on his suggestion."

Only three days after these Rockefeller letters, Scott Jones
wrote a letter to Jack Gibbons fulfilling his role to provide
Dr. Gibbons with the best evidence they could provide on the
Roswell case. Much of the material presented to Gibbons with
the letter, was produced by the Fund For UFO Research as part
of their effort "to support a thorough and open inquiry into
the Roswell incident." also enclosed with the letter was a
series of press clipping related to the efforts that were being
undertaken by Representative Steven Schiff (R-NM).

The OSTP files also show that Dr. Gibbons office was provided a
170 page report on Roswell prepared for the Fund for UFO
Research by Fred Whiting. It is not clear if the report was
presented prior to, after, or during the February 4th meeting.
This private report titled "The Roswell Events" was described
as,

A chronology of events and a compilation of supporting
documentation concerning the possible crash of an Unidentified
Flying Object and the recovery of its wreckage and the bodies
of its crew in July 1947 near Roswell, New Mexico.

In the letter Jones also revealed two interesting sidelights to
Roswell investigations going on in other government circles.
Both sidelights were presented by Jones as warnings to Dr.
Gibbons that the Roswell search was not going to be an easy
one. The first item Jones pointed out was that he had heard
that when the GAO had contacted the Pentagon for information on
Roswell for their investigation, they had been told by a
military spokesman to "Go shit in your hat." Secondly, Jones
warned about UFOs being used to cloak other highly classified
projects.

My mention of mind-control technology at the February 4 meeting
was quite deliberate. There are reasons to believe that some
government group has interwoven research about this technology
with alleged UFO phenomena. If that is correct, you can expect
to run into early resistance when inquiring about UFOs, not
because of the UFO subject, but because that has been used to
cloak research and application of mind-control activity.

On April 26, 1994 Rockefeller was again back in contact with
Gibbons, this time commenting on the Clinton Executive Order to
reduce unnecessary secrecy classification that was being
circulated among federal agencies. Rockefeller hoped that it
would be enough to help find the UFO files that were being
sought. Secondly, in this letter Rockefeller mentioned meeting
with Carl Sagan on the issue of extraterrestrial life. Sagan
had expressed skepticism about the quality of the evidence of
extraterrestrial life, but did "strongly support" the release
of government information on the subject.

On May 24, 1994 Gibbons received a memorandum from Sheila E.
Widnall, Secretary of the Air Force, notifying him that the Air
Force was investigating UFOs, and "Roswell in particular." It
is assumed that the request for the U.S.A.F. to investigate
Roswell came from Dr. Gibbons office, the President, or someone
inside the President's office. We will not know for sure who
ordered the investigation because Clinton records are not
subject to FOIA for the next five years.

What is known is that Secretary Widnall knew the White House
wanted a report on Roswell, and she was writing to Gibbons to
report what had been done. Her words were very encouraging,

"While we don't have the bottom line yet, I thought you would
be interested in this interim report I got from my staff. I
intended to bring it over this morning, but forgot. My policy
is that we are declassifying everything even remotely related,
and anything our people think still needs to be classified will
have to be justified to me. More to follow!

On the bottom of the memo Gibbons wrote a note for his primary
Roswell expert in the office Skip Johns, "Skip- for your
scanning. After you and I have had a chance to discuss, I'll be
ready to communicate with L.R. and his niece. JG"

On May 26, 1994 Scott Jones wrote another letter to Gibbons to
ask if "there had been enough progress with your look into the
Roswell incident to warrant another meeting with Laurance."
Secondly, Jones stated he was writing to update Gibbons on the
latest news.

One news item Jones wanted to relate is that there had been a
break in the Rockefeller camp. Richard Farley, who had written
the "The Matrix of UFO Beliefs" briefing that was used to
introduce Gibbons to the UFO classification issue, had broken
with the team. Worse yet, as Jones related, he had made an
independent move to bypass Rockefeller and Gibbons and go right
to the President. This meant that there were now at least two
roads to the President on the same issue. "I am sorry," wrote
Jones, "about this uncoordinated action." Jones explained what
had happened,

I have learned that one of the Foundation's former staff
members, Dick Farley, has made an independent contact with the
White House on the UFO subject. Farley wrote me that as of a
month ago he had sent three different packets of material that
detailed the complete activities of the foundation in support
of Mr. Rockefeller and his interest in the declassification of
government materials related to the UFO phenomena. Farley would
only identify the White House staff person as an Assistant to
the President and Deputy Chief of Staff (the staffer turned out
to be Deputy Chief of Staff Phil Lader who went on to be
appointed by President Clinton to be Ambassador to Great
Britain) . . my major concern is that when you heard about
Farley's approach you may have thought that we were trying to
run a second separate program on this subject with another part
of the White House Staff. That emphatically is not the case.
Farley had personal motivation for what he did, and I suspect
we will continue to try to maintain the contact."

Along with this refection of Richard Farley from the
Rockefeller camp, came a another break from the Rockefeller
camp. Ufologist Jacques Vallee had been offered a position
helping with the Disclosure Initiative. Instead of taking the
offer, Vallee turned it down and wrote directly to Dr. Gibbons
to present his own UFO views which differed from those
Rockefeller was presenting. He offered to meet with Gibbons
either in San Francisco or Washington and at Gibbons
convenience. Despite Vallee's high profile in the UFO community
Gibbons turned Vallee down cold. Vallee was told he could
provide anything on the subject by mail, but as one of Gibbon's
aides wrote, "Did not encourage."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 8

                      Re: Marcia Smith Letter - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 8 Jul 2001 19:09:05 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:47:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Marcia Smith Letter - Cameron


Ms. Smith,

I have written you to get clarification from you about a story
that is being told about a report you may have written back in
the days of the Carter administration. I am a researcher here in
Canada working on stories and documents related to U.S.
Presidents and the UFO phenomena.

The story I am interested in is being told by Christic Institute
Director Daniel Sheehan, who has publically, on a number of
occasions, told about his personal involvement inside the CRS.
He has also confirmed these statement to me by phone. For the
record, Daniel has stated that the reports he was helping with,
dealt with UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence. He is on
record as stating these reports were researched and written up
in 1977 after President Carter came to office.

It was your friend James Oberg who first asked me what your
reaction was to a draft of an article I had circulated on the
Internet, for comment and correction, related to Sheehan story.
I probably should have asked your comment prior to posting the
article.

Mr. Oberg told me of a brief conversation you and he had about
your authoring of "The UFO Enigma." Apparently, it was not your
favorite essay topic. Mr. Oberg said he too would be interested
in your position on the claims being made by Daniel Sheehan. He
provided me your e-mail so you could have a chance to comment. I
am willing to provide a copy of the article if you require it.

I would like you to help resolve the following questions.

1) Did you ask Daniel Sheehan to request UFO related files from
the Vatican Library?

2) Did Daniel Sheehan act as a special consultant to the
Congressional Research Office?

3) Did you write a report(s) for the House of Representatives
Committee on Science and Technology related to UFOs and/or
extraterrestrial intelligence?

4) Did you relate to Daniel Sheehan a story about a request
Jimmy Carter had made to former CIA Director George Bush related
to obtaining the information the government possessed on UFOs?

5) Did you or anyone you know obtain access for Daniel Sheehan
to see classified sections of the Blue Book Files?

6) Did you ask Daniel Sheehan to make a UFO presentation at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California?

I hope you can assist me with some direction on all or at least
some of these important historical questions.


Grant 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 >
   Jul > Jul 8

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

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 22:45:53 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:50:16 -0400
Subject: Re:  Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Balaskas


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:46:42 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>Date: 5 Jul 2001 05:38:31 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >>Oberg said it was a Russian space vehicle. You guys should get
 >>your horses all running in the same direction. Walker refused to
 >>educate us on either meteors or Russian spacecraft when asked
 >>what is was.

 >Another example of your paranoia. You assume that every person
 >in the world who is skeptical of your saucer nonsense is somehow
 >in cahoots. James Oberg thought the Kecksburg fireball might
 >have been a Soviet (not Russian) spacecraft _before_ he read the
 >1966 scientific paper which described the photographic
 >triangulation of the December 9, 1965, meteor.

Hi Bob and Grant.

You are two researchers that have inspired and enlightened me
about the UFO phenomena through your factual and informative
posts to UFO UpDates but, your latest ones have confused me. I
need some clarifications or answers regarding the 1965 Kecksburg
UFO crash incident.

I checked through back issues of Sky & Telescope and I found an
article about the Kecksburg UFO in the February 1996 issue.
Apart from one photo of the meteor's dust trail, nothing else in
this article suggested that anyone was able to determine the
prior orbit in space of this object from the photographic
derived data. Is there another 1966 scientific paper you were
referring to Bob?

Since James Oberg in the September 1993 issue of OMNI magazine
still considered that the Kecksburg UFO could be attributed to
the Soviet Kosmos 96 space probe that fell back to Earth, are
you sure that James had already read or even accepted the
conclusions of the 1966 scientific paper you mentioned?

It is interesting that I was able to find plenty of photos in
Sky & Telescope of another comparible fireball that was seen a
few months later on April 25, 1966 in very much the same skies
that the December 9, 1965 Kecksburg UFO was seen in. This meteor
event was observed from Toronto by an astronomer at the new main
campus of York University where I am now employed. Not much more
was written about this incident that I could find though.

In a personal reply I got in 1990 from David Levy (an observer
famous for the many comets he has discovered using telescopes),
he wrote about yet another similar fireball event around the
same time. He witnessed a fireball (I may have seen the same one
too) in the early evening of July 29, 1965. This object, which
David suspected was a re-entering satellite (it looked like a
firey spherical UFO to me which left no trail), was by
coincidence also observed over the same general geographic area
as the Kecksburg UFO. I saw my object from just west of Montreal
and David saw his from Plattsburgh, New York. Do you know of
other reports for this fireball/UFO?

What are your explanations for the December 9, 1965 object that
was seen and heard streaking in the sky over Canada and several
northeastern U.S. states? Even if the Kecksburg UFO was indeed a
"meteor", this doesn't tells us anything about its makeup and
certainly does not rule out an artificial origin for it.

When all the other important facts on the Kecksburg UFO that
were presented in an updated paper (to the one published in the
MUFON UFO Journal in 1989) that researcher Stan Gordon sent to
me are taken into account, can we honestly come to the
conclusion that the Kecksburg UFO was just another fireball?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 9

                     Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:39:11 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:52:27 -0400
Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Gates


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:59:47 EDT
 >Subject: CIA Files on Noah's Ark
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >FYI without comment:

 >Bristol United Press
 >Western Daily Press
 >July 3, 2001

 >Is this really Noah's ice tomb?

 >Conspiracy Theory Suggests CIA Has Uncovered The Remains Of Biblical
 >Boat On The Slopes Of Turkey'S Mt. Ararat

 >Nicky Redfern


 >In a move certain to attract conspiracy theorists everywhere,
 >the CIA has declassified "an interim release of documents"
 >concerning "the possible remains of Noah's Ark on Mt.Ararat,
 >Turkey".

<snip of Nickys article>

 >Interestingly, the first entry in the file does not date from
 >the immediate post-World War Two era. Nor has the CIA commented
 >on the assertions of former CIA man Dino Brugioni.

They likely won't because as I recall the story his assertions
involve "photos" taken from systems newer then the declassified
Corona photo sat and hence the photos would still be codeword
classified.

 >Rather, the first entry in the file dates from 1992 and is a
 >letter from one Charles P. Aaron, described as "Chief Pilot and
 >Director of Operations" for the "Tsirah Corporation".

 >He wrote to the CIA requesting its assistance in the search for
 >Noah's fabled vessel - a search that had been in progress for a
 >number of years and that had the support of the late astronaut
 >Jim Irwin and several U.S. senators and congressmen.

 >Noteworthy is the fact that Aaron informed the CIA that "several
 >qualified officials" had informed him that the U.S. Government
 >possessed a "restricted-access satellite surveillance system
 >which is capable of looking through ice".

 >Aaron sensibly advised the CIA further that he was not
 >interested in obtaining knowledge of what might have been
 >classified surveillance-based technology, but simply wanted to
 >know if the CIA could lend help to Tsirah's quest to search the
 >ice-covered peaks of Mount Ararat for the Ark.

 >A memorandum of June 2, 1992 titled Noah's Ark and designated
 >for the CIA's Office of Imagery Analysis stated that Charles
 >Aaron's request was sent to the Director. "Mr Aaron's letter
 >stated a belief that the agency has the technical capability to
 >look through hundreds of feet of ice and asked that we use this
 >technology to aid his search for the Ark, " it said "To the best
 >of OIA's knowledge, there is no such existing technology."

So the OIA is saying that to the best of its knowledge we don't
have the capability to look through hundreds of feet of ice.

 >The CIA added that, having looked at "existing imagery" of Mount
 >Ararat they were "unable to confirm the existence of the Ark or
 >its proposed location" and suggested that the Tsirah Corporation
 >should be informed likewise.

Saying that they could not confirm the existence of the Ark.
Having seen the photos (1 meter resolution) published in the
Insight mag earlier this year I couldn't "definitively" make out
cross beams or a ship. As I recall neither could the photo
analysis at NPIC.

 >Of course, that would seem to suggest that the CIA had not come
 >across any evidence indicating the existence of anything that
 >remotely resembled the Ark on Mount Ararat. But, as is often the
 >case when we immerse ourselves in the murky world of the CIA,
 >things are not quite so clear cut.

 >A formerly "Secret" CIA memo contained within the file and dated
 >21 January 1993, for example, makes a curious reference to a
 >"request to declassify imagery of Noah's Ark for a TV
 >production" that was, to quote further, "turned down" by the
 >CIA.

 >One might ask, of course: how could the release by the CIA of
 >"imagery of Noah's Ark" be "turned down" when its very existence
 >was denied to the Tsirah Corporation?

It was turned down because it for images that are from the more
current generations of photo recce sats and they are still
codeword classified material.

<snip>

 >Whilst the allegations that imagery of the Ark exists in the
 >vaults of the CIA cannot at this stage be conclusively
 >confirmed, the existence of extensive CIA footage of the Mount
 >Ararat region is not in dispute.

Why mess around trying to get CIA stuff declassified when you
can get Russian 1 meter photos?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 9

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

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 01:08:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:56:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Deschamps


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:28:07 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:58:01 -0000

<snip>

 >Dick:

 >Off-duty means on one's own time. I think that it is probable
 >that he was also on his own time. There isn't a shred of
 >evidence that he wasn't. According to the tale here he was in
 >the crowd at the site of the search. Why would he be in the
 >crowd with a couple military people off-duty if he was a leading
 >figure in the recovery of an alien spaceship? Because it is
 >another example of divergent information being accepted by
 >believers to make the stories fit.

 >The Kecksburg saucer crash was a meteor,

<snip>

Where'd you get the idea that the Kecksberg Object was a
meteorite? No one's ever seen it.

Here's another case of poo-pooing the eyewitness testimony, and
making a mundane explanation fit something that isn't so.

I should know. Had plenty of sightings, and there are always
Ignoramuses who think that I mistook some celestial body or
as-of-yet undiscovered atmospheric condition for UFOs.

Based on eyewitness testimony, this Kecksberg object was on a
slow, gliding descent, and changed direction twice.....a
streaking meteor can't do that!

James Oberg was an idiot for saying it was a Russian probe... I
think there would have been a large _CCCP_ written somewhere on
the side of the object, had it been a probe or a satellite. Not
the highly unusual symbols that were seen on it.

As I always say... same crap, different pile!


Michel M. Deschamps
UFO Eyewitness/Researcher/Historian









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 9

              CCCRN News: 07-09-01 - Formation Report 2001 #5 -

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 23:04:39 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:59:04 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: 07-09-01 - Formation Report 2001 #5 -


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

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

July 9, 2001

_____________________________


(UPDATE) FORMATION REPORT 2001 #5 - SURREY, BRITISH COLUMBIA


After an initial inspection this past week by researchers Chad
Deetken of Pacific Research and Graham Conway of UFOBC, it
appears that the circles were a probable hoax, apparently timed
for the Canada Day weekend. Six circles in all, about 4.5 meters
(15 feet) diameter each; at least some of them are reportedly
uneven with messy lays and damaged plants. A badly done
'Canadian flag' was also found a short distance away. Even if a
hoax, an investigation is still worthwhile, if only to use this
case as a comparison study for future formations, being able to
compare the physical properties of known man-made circles with
those that are genuinely unknown (I will be going to the
location this week, after not being able to last week, to do a
general survey, etc.; field report to follow shortly - PA).

____________________________


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:
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 >
   Jul > Jul 9

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:16:27 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:01:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle
 >Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 10:17:19 -0700

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:00:38 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:15:54 -0700

 >>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Yes and you're both wrong and not only that, you both refuse to
 >>>examine any evidence that might get you both to change your
 >>>collective opinions.

 >>Not refused to look at the evidence, refused to examine it for
 >>the fifth or sixth time. Nothing new has been presented, and I
 >>have been in contact with some who are very close to the center
 >>of this. Without something new, there really is no reason to
 >>revisit this.


 >Kevin,

 >Your informants "who are very close to the center of this" have
 >been giving you poor information. And I can't imagine who they
 >might be since the main folks at the very center of the AA
 >controversy are Ray, the cameraman, Philip Mantle, Mike Heseman,
 >Neil Morris, the Roswell photo team, and me.

Ed, List, all -

You've named a couple of them. Do I understand, from your
note here that you have actually spoken to this mythical
cameraman (and yes, I used the word mythical on purpose)?

 >But there is plenty of new information; you only have to open
 >your eyes and take a look. The new AA CDs could be the first
 >place to begin your search for the truth. Neil has been able to
 >compress the AA footage, the FW photos & much more, and all the
 >necessary software for viewing, onto two CDs. We plan to sell
 >them for $15 (that includes shipping and handling) to any
 >interested researchers. We will also include a Flatland Magazine
 >which contains two new articles on the debris and the Ramey
 >message by Neil Morris and M. Dennis.

 >The information you now have on the AA, as shown by your writing
 >on the subject, is a hodgepodge of misinformation and downright
 >lies.

I certainly hope that you are not implying that I have lied
about any of this.

 >>>All I wanted from you was information concerning the dates of
 >>>May 29, 30, 31, and June 1, 2, from Barney's wife's diary. I
 >>>thought it was a simple request but you refused to help. Why?

 >>Actually, I thought that I had supplied the information. There
 >>was nothing in the diary to suggest that Barnett was out of the
 >>office on the dates you mention. I have loaned my copy to
 >>another researcher so don't have the precise information

 >That isn't what you indicated when I first requested the
 >information. In a sigh-like tone you indicated that you couldn't
 >be bothered. But I'm still interested. Why don't you humor me
 >and call this other researcher with the loaned diary and ask him
 >specifically for Barney's whereabouts on the 30th and 31st of
 >May and the 1st of June. I would prefer the exact quotes; that
 >would satisfy my curiosity

Nope. I suggested that Barnett was in the office, which meant he
could have left the office and driven around the area in
Socorro, so, it would not really prove anything one way or the
other. I will supply those just as quickly as I can, but there
are some problems, with which I won't bore this list, that make
it a little difficult right now. Patience is its own reward.

 >>>The one in late May and early June that the cameraman filmed was
 >>>the one on the plains.

 >>If there was any cameraman. To this point we have only written
 >>statements that are altered as criticisms are offered which, to
 >>my mind, fails to inspire confidence in the reliability of the
 >>statement. Not to mention the violation of the various protocols
 >>in place in 1947 when there would be no reason to violate those
 >>protocols.

 >This is part of the misinformation I mentioned. There have not
 >been any altered statements. The cameraman's statement has not
 >been altered and you have offered no proof that it has been. I
 >asked you for proof during our previous discussion on the AA and
 >so far you have not produced the altered statement. As for the
 >protocols, the cameraman explained why he had the footage in his
 >possession and so far there is no evidence to refute his story
 >which makes sense in the context of the situation in which he
 >found himself. It was a simple fluke that we now possess this
 >amazing footage.

I suggested that you return to the dialog between Don Ecker and
Bob Shell for the precise areas in which the cameraman's
statement had been altered. It covers why there were alterations
in it, including the excuse that a British secretary had typed
it from the tape and had changed it... then it was changed back.

The cameraman's explanations as to how he ended up with the film
do not make any sense. It was in violation of the protocols and
there was no reason for those protocols to have been suspended.
His tale of a trip from Washington to Wright Field to Roswell
and then a car trip over to Socorro makes no sense. Why not fly
right into either Albuquerque or Alamogordo and make a much
easier car trip down to Socorro? Why didn't he use color film
for the autopsy? Especially the one in the brightly lighted
room? Where was the still photographer and the stationary motion
picture camera? Why weren't these protocols followed? They had
time to set it up because this was what, four or five weeks
after the crash?

The cameraman's story doesn't hold water. He said that he didn't
want his name known because he didn't want anyone to know he had
sold the film for big money. Of course, since there was only one
cameraman, according to him, the government knows who he is
because there is only one. They can now arrest him on felony
charges, not the least of which is income tax evasion. No matter
how careful you are with his name, the government has records
and can learn who this was. Then, since he has not paid taxes on
the money, and because he was selling, in essence, stolen
property, and, since he was in violation of various laws that
protect classified material (even if that material is over 50
years old), they could find him and arrest him. These records
are in surprisingly good and complete shape. We've had trouble
prying the records out of the government's hands, but the
records have been there. So, there really is no way for this man
to have held the film, sold it, and not be known to the
government.

I might point out here that they can prosecute him for income
tax evasion without having to delve into the reality of the
autopsy film. He was paid and attempted to hide that income. The
government can get him without having to reveal what they know.

If there was a cameraman, if there was an actual film, and if
there was a crash in May, 1947, none of which can be proven by
the evidence held today. There are indications of a film, but
those have not been tested. There are excuses, but those excuses
are not very convincing. Seems to me that if Kodak tested the
film and confirmed it had been shot in the late 1940s, the
credibility of the tale takes a big leap forward. I know the
excuses, but I just don't find them to be convincing.

 >The cameraman led Mike H and others to the crash site by giving
 >them a map. He included details that could only be know by
 >someone who had visited the site including a mine activated
 >during 1947 as a cover for bringing in heavy equipment.

 >>>The second crash happened on the night of the 2nd of July and
 >>>the debris and bodies were removed on the night of the 3rd and
 >>>early AM of the 4th of July. That crash resulted in the debris
 >>>found on the Brazel ranch three days later, and is the crash
 >>>in which the MP participated. From his description of his
 >>>drive to the site, the location of that crash was probably
 >>>somewhere in the White Mountain region.

 >>Except there is better evidence that the crash actually happened
 >>on the evening of July 4, which throws your time table off by a
 >>couple of days.

 >Could you elaborate on this "better evidence". And while you're
 >at it could you give a brief description of your latest take on
 >the events at Roswell. With major witnesses falling by the
 >wayside, it seems to me that the Roswell story has become a bit
 >tattered and worn. The MP said the crash occurred on the 2nd and
 >retrieval was the 3rd and 4th of July. And what about the
 >Wilmots?

Yes, a document, that still needs some work that specifies the
July 4 date and no, I'm not referring to the nun's diary. And to
a chronology based on the sightings of William Woody and some
observations by MPs at the base... men whose names actually
appear in the yearbook.

The MP? The one whose picture is not in the Yearbook, but who
remembered some of those who are? Have you retrieved his service
record from the National Records Center in St. Louis? Have you
seen any documentation that proves this MP was in Roswell at the
right time and therefore could provide commentary on the events?

The Wilmots saw a craft over Roswell on July 2 which, to my
thinking, is irrelevant. You must assume that what they saw was
an extraterrestrial craft and that it is the craft that crashed.
If their observation was of a natural phenomena, a
misidentification, or other terrestrially based object, then
what they saw provides nothing in the way of information. The
Wilmot sighting can be considered a red herring and of little
importance in understanding the Roswell case.

 >>>The May crash may be the one that Barney observed.
 >>>There is no evidence that it is, or that such a crash took place.

 >Yes there is but you won't take a close look. Send me your
 >mailing address and I'll send you the CDs, free, in return for
 >the Barney's whereabouts on the 31st of June.

I have taken close looks. I have provided information that you
reject out of hand. You have yet to explain how the terrestrial
word "video" appears on the alien I-beam. You say that it
doesn't, yet almost anyone who has seen the debris footage has
seen this word. Isn't it an extraordinary coincidence that
"video" appears on the I-beam of the alien wreckage that is,
itself on video.

Dare I point out that he was nowhere on the 31st of June?

As soon as I have the information, I will forward it to you, as
I have done in the past (no, not this specific information, but
other information).

 >>Basically he was in the office in Socorro, which is what I told
 >>you before.

 >The cameraman's crash site wasn't that far from Socorro ( at the
 >foot of the Magdalena Mts.) and Barney may have encountered it
 >during the normal course of his daily working activities. Yes, he
 >may have been "in the office" but still working in the field.

Yes, that's what I said. He is listed as in the office which
didn't mean he sat in the building the whole day. It means, more
or less, that he was in the Socorro area.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 9

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:27:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:03:56 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle


 >Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 13:11:16 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 23:15:39 -0400

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:18:42 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>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...

 ><snip>

 >>>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.

Good Morning All -

 >PEER (John Mack's organization) did an anonymous survey (I think
 >in the mid 1990s) and published the results in their journal
 >'Peer  Perspectives'. Maybe you could write to them and request
 >a copy of the journal? I'm sure it is still available even if it
 >is photocopied.

Quite true, but I'm talking about a much larger survey. Among
the various researchers there has to be thousands of abductees,
and I think a survey of all of them would be of great use. If
there are any trends, then we should be able to establish them.
Clues about abduction certainly would be discovered, and there
might be some answers hidden in there. To this point, such
surveys have been limited in scope. Budd Hopkins surveyed nine
for signs of psycho-pathology and John Mack surveyed four. I do
understand the expense involved in conducting these
psychological surveys, but others would be of just information
that might give us some clues.

 >Also, I thought Dr. Roger Leir was taking blood samples and
 >urine samples for analysis from abductees after or soon after an
 >abduction experience to see if anything was detected in their
 >systems. Have these results been published yet? -- KW

Yes, but it he typing blood? He's looking for anything in their
systems, which might not yield results. I have heard that there
is a matching of blood types and it seemed to me that this was
an avenue to explore.

In fact, all of these things are avenues that need to be explored.

 >>>So now back to the original question. John, all, what exactly is
 >>>your take on these reports of Satanic Ritual Abuse?

 >Kevin:

 >I, too, have to say that from what I've read and learned about
 >SRA and what I've learned and/or experienced about abductions, I
 >do not see any similarities between the two. Except for the fact
 >that in general, people do not seem to believe the victims of
 >either phenomenon and that the FBI does not believe there is any
 >proof that either are occurring. (The FBI is a curious group of
 >individuals, aren't they?) -- KW

I think five years ago I might have objected to your
characterization of the FBI, but today? They haven't exactly
shone, especially with the allegations that they falsified
laboratory test results. They certainly have evolved into a
curious group.

However, I have carefully reviewed the investigations into SRA
and compared them to investigations done by other police
agencies, investigative journalists, psychologists, and a number
of other types of people, and their results seem to agree with
those reported by the FBI. Even Braun and his colleagues, who
sort of originated this avenue of investigation said in their
published paper that they had no physical evidence, but that
they had gathered the reports from hundreds victims of SRA. The
bottom line is, however, that no one has ever produced evidence
that these worldwide cult that murders people and forces them
into these horrific ceremonies. On this one, SRA, I'll have to
agree with the FBI because there is evidence that they are
right.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 9

                       More Evidence For Life On Mars

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:18:06 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:16:36 -0400
Subject: More Evidence For Life On Mars


Hi everyone!

In yesterday's 'Toronto Star', there was a beautiful colour
photo of Mars taken by the Hubble Space Telescope which Terry
Dickinson included with his weekly astronomy newspaper column.

With all those planet-wide dust storms on Mars over the years,
have you ever wondered why the whole planet was not red? I still
hold the view that those large regions that are not red (they
even appear greenish in the HST photo!) are very likely plants
growing out of the otherwise red Martian soil. This would
account for the seasonal variations in colour still observed on
the 'Red Planet' but which is not well explained in terms of
weather (eg. changes in dust and moisture levels, etc.).

If you check out the article below, you will find new evidence
in support that there is life on Mars now. If there are indeed
living organisms on Mars, NASA's recently hired astrobiologists
will have something to study.

Nick Balaskas

----------

Today on SPACE.com -- Monday, July 9, 2001 -- http://www.space.com/

<snip>

Today in Science/Astronomy:

* Images Stir Life on Mars Debate

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/clarke_mars_banyon_010709-1.ht
ml

Mars has turned into a red planet Rorschach test. Depending on
who is doing the looking, pictures snapped by the orbiting Mars
Global Surveyor (MGS) clearly show a world of big time biota,
from fields of vegetation and towering Banyan trees, to blotches
of bacteria and even a giant circuit board.

<snip>








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 9

                        Re: The Nigerian Scam - Woods

From: Michael Woods <mike.woods@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:46:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:20:29 -0400
Subject: Re: The Nigerian Scam - Woods


Dear Listers,

After that recent posting about the Nigerian Letter/Fax/E-mail
scam, I thought you might be interested in this notice sent to
my work today. When the wire story moves on this news
conference, I'll forward to Errol for posting.

Mike Woods

-----------

Attention News/Assignment Editors:
Media Advisory - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

TORONTO, July 9 /CNW/ - The Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Toronto West Detachment Commercial Crime Section will be holding
a news conference on Tuesday July 10th, 2001 to announce the
successful end of a three year investigation into an
International "Nigerian Letter Fraud" scam.

Attending the conference will be members from the RCMP as well
as representatives from the United States Secret Service and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Date: Tuesday July 10th, 2001

Time: 10:30 am

Location: RCMP Media Centre
           25 St. Clair Avenue East
           Suite 831
           Toronto, Ontario

           -0-   07/09/2001

For further information: Cst. Michele PARADIS, RCMP "O" Division
Media Relations officer at (416) 952-4619 office, (416) 715-2375
pager or (905) 691-3952 c-phone.

CO:  Royal Canadian Mounted Police

-----------

The truth can STAY out there
Send in a good FANTASY.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 9

                     Recent Kentucky Animal Mutilations

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:15:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:32:59 -0400
Subject: Recent Kentucky Animal Mutilations


Here is a report that i was surprised to find in today's
newspaper concerning some recent animal mutilations in Kentucky.
I couldn't find an internet location for the article so just
went ahead and re-typed it. The writer avoids reference to UFOs,
but it is very interesting that the writer noted how hairs from
the bull were found in a tree limb.

-=- KY

==========


LIVESTOCK KILLINGS PUZZLE ALL

By Byron Crawford
The Cincinnati Enquirer - Kentucky Edition
Page B1 - July 10, 2001

Leitchfield, KY - This is the kind of disgusting story that I
hate to write and you hate to read. But maybe someone who can
help will call.

Grayson County Sheriff Joe Brad Hudson is puzzled over recent
livestock killings and mutilations in southern Grayson County.

The latest occurred about seven weeks ago near Nolin Lake and is
still under investigation. A 2-month old Appaloosa colt
belonging to Mike and Rose Downs was found dead in a pasture.
The sheriff found a 1-inch hold in the animal's chest, but he
found no bullet exit wound or shell casing, and no blood around
the carcass. The colt's sexual organs were missing.

About a year ago, Leonard Bruner, the Downses' neighbor, found
one of his heifer calves dead in the edge of woods on his farm -
her sexual organs, tongue and one ear removed and no blood on
the animal or on the ground.

GOES BACK 25 YEARS

These are not the only unsolved cases of animal mutilations in
the area.

Moran Mudd, who lives in Sadler, about 10 miles south of
Leitchfield, lost a Hereford bull some years ago. When he found
the animal in a small stream bed on his farm, the bull's sexual
organs were missing. His hooves had also been removed so cleanly
that they looked as though they could have fallen off. But they
were lined up - the two front hooves in front of the two back
hooves - on a nearby flat rock. Several long hairs from the
bull's tail were hanging from a nearby tree limb about 4 feet
off the ground. There was no sign of a bullet wound and there
was no blood.

"Buzzards wouldn't even eat him," Mr. Mudd said. "It's weird."

Such mutilations have been occurring at irregular intervals
around Grayson County for at least 25 years, without
explanation. No arrests are known to have ever been made.

Although no running total has been kept, retired Sheriff Lonnie
Swift, who served from 1974 to 1977, remembers investigating two
mutilation cases similar to the most recent.

"I don't remember a lot of details about it, but I believe one
of the cases was a bull calf, and they cut off its left ear
right close to the skull, and cut out its sex organs, but there
was no blood anywhere," Mr. Swift said. "That was near
Caneyville. Seems like the other case involved more than one
animal, but I can't remember. We never did find out anything
about who did it."

Pete Pence, retired Leitchfield police chief and a former
sheriff's deputy, remembers a case involving multiple
mutilations of cattle in the 1970s, but he cannot recall
details.

CULT ACTIVITY CONSIDERED

Since the most recent mutilations, Grayson County Detective Roy
Clodfelter has questioned a few farmers who lost animals several
years ago, hoping to turn up clues that might help solve the
cases.

Sheriff Hudson says his office has considered the possibility of
cult activity, but officials have neither seen nor heard other
evidence suggesting the presence of a cult. He hopes someone
will come forward with information.

"It's like a no-motive murder," he said. "Once you get so far,
you're pretty much at a standstill."

Anyone with information may phone the Grayson County sheriff at
270-259-3024








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 9

                          Secrecy News -- 07/10/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 11:26:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:35:11 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 07/10/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
July 10, 2001

**MISSILE DEFENSE CRITIQUE PUBLISHED
**FBI REBUTS GAO ON WEN HO LEE
**MACEDONIA: BACKGROUND AND RECENT CONFLICT
**WHEN SECRETS CRASH
**FOIA AT 35
**ECHELON: RESOLUTION AND DISSENT
**STRATCOM DETERRENCE STUDY
**MI-5 RELEASES
**NAZI WAR CRIMES
**SLOVENIAN INTELLIGENCE ONLINE


MISSILE DEFENSE CRITIQUE PUBLISHED

After an extended tug of war between the Pentagon and
Congressman John F. Tierney (D-MA), a critique of the national
missile defense program that the Defense Department tried to
suppress has now been released to the public.

The August 2000 report, which faults the missile defense program
for inadequate and unrealistic testing, was prepared by Philip
Coyle, then-Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

"The Department of Defense has not approved the release of this
report to the general public," wrote Stewart F. Aly, DoD Acting
Deputy General Counsel in a May 31 letter to Rep. Dan Burton,
Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee.

"Accordingly, the report should not be disclosed to persons
other than Members of Congress and professional staff members
who have an official need to see it," Mr. Aly continued.  "We
specifically request that you not post this report on any web
sites."

But Democrats on the Government Reform Committee, led by Rep.
Tierney, quickly determined that there was no legal
justification for withholding the unclassified document.  They
have posted the full text of the Coyle report, with accompanying
analysis and related correspondence, here:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/nmd.html


FBI REBUTS GAO ON WEN HO LEE

FBI Assistant Director Neil J. Gallagher lashed out at the
General Accounting Office for suggesting in a recent report that
he might have "intentionally" misled Congress in testimony
concerning the Wen Ho Lee investigation.

In a June 27 letter released by the FBI, Mr. Gallagher
acknowledged that when he testified before Congress in June 1999
he was not aware of the defects in the Administrative Inquiry
that initially named Wen Ho Lee as a possible espionage suspect.
But in his defense, he notes that he wrote to Congress in
November 1999 to correct the record after he learned that the
basis for the Wen Ho Lee investigation was disputed.

The FBI's shifting understanding of the early phases of the Wen
Ho Lee case is documented in correspondence attached to Mr.
Gallagher's letter.  See his rebuttal to the GAO review here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/whl_gall.html


MACEDONIA: BACKGROUND AND RECENT CONFLICT

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that the
U.S. was prepared to participate in a possible NATO deployment
to Macedonia.

"The United States would participate in a variety of ways
involving essentially enabling and logistics and intelligence
gathering and helicopter capability, that type of thing, with
respect to medical evacuation and the like," he said.

A comprehensive Congressional Research Service report entitled
"Macedonia: Country Background and Recent Conflict," updated
July 5, is available here:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL30900.pdf


WHEN SECRETS CRASH

What happens when an aircraft whose very existence is considered
secret suffers a very public accident?  Jeffrey T. Richelson
examines the history of classified aircraft accidents from the
U-2 to the F-117A in "When Secrets Crash," published in the July
issue of Air Force Magazine:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2001/0701secrets.html


FOIA AT 35

The "State of Freedom of Information" is the subject of a
valuable new online publication of the National Security
Archive, presented on the 35th anniversary of the passage of the
Freedom of Information Act.

The Archive reviews the cost, volume and utility of current FOIA
activity and offers an impressive compilation of official
records documenting the history and evolution of the FOIA, along
with guidance for new requesters.  See:

http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB51/

The newly published transcript of a June 2000 congressional
hearing on "Agency Response to the Electronic Freedom of
Information Act" is available here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/061400_efoia.html


ECHELON: RESOLUTION AND DISSENT

The European Parliament committee on the "Echelon" electronic
surveillance network approved a resolution on July 3 summarizing
the findings and conclusions of its year long investigation for
consideration by the full Parliament in September.  A copy of
the resolution, obtained by Cryptome.org, is posted here:

http://cryptome.org/echelon-epmr.htm

Several members of the committee dissented from the resolution,
and complained that it gave short shrift to personal privacy.
They declared: "This report makes an important point in
emphasizing that Echelon does exist, but it stops short of
drawing political conclusions. It is hypocritical for the
European Parliament to criticise the Echelon interception
practice while taking part in plans to establish a European
secret service."  See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/eu_dissent.html


STRATCOM DETERRENCE STUDY

A 1995 study prepared for the U.S. Strategic Command
investigated the nature of nuclear deterrence and the
refinements to U.S. nuclear policy that might be required to
strengthen deterrence.   The study was reported by Walter Pincus
in the Washington Post on July 5.

The document itself, entitled "Essentials of Post-Cold War
Deterrence," was obtained in declassified form by Hans M.
Kristensen of the Nautilus Institute and is available here:

http://www.nautilus.org/nukestrat/USA/Advisory/essentials95.html


MI-5 RELEASES

The Public Record Office of Great Britain announced the
declassification and release of a new set of historical records
on MI-5, the nation's Security Service, on July 5.  See:

http://www.pro.gov.uk/releases/july2001/secser1.htm


NAZI WAR CRIMES

Although the history of the Nazi Holocaust has been intensely
scrutinized for many years now, new details continue to emerge.

"Documents declassified under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act
of 1998 are shedding new light on what the American and British
intelligence communities knew of Hitler's plans for the Jews
early in World War II," according to a July 2 news release from
the Interagency Working Group on Nazi War Crimes.  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/07/iwg070201.html

The transcript of a June 2000 congressional hearing on "The
Implementation of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act" is posted
here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/062700_nwc.html


SLOVENIAN INTELLIGENCE ONLINE

One measure of the international trend toward increasing
"transparency" is the fact that many otherwise obscure and
secretive intelligence agencies are establishing a new presence
for themselves on the world wide web.

The latest entry is the Slovenian Intelligence and Security
Agency (Slovenska Obveseevalno-Varnostna Agencija).  Its brand
new web site has exceptionally fine production values, but
little content so far.  See:

http://www.gov.si/sova/

******************************
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]


___________________
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 >
   Jul > Jul 9

                         Re: Serious Research - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:40:26 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:40:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall


 >From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:20:59 -0600

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:08:36 -0500

 >>>Yesterday, I read this little piece of information in Jim Marrs'
 >>>'Alien Agenda', under the subtitle 'Saucers of the Reich',
 >>>(Alien Agenda, pp 66-72), which may only serve to further
 >>>confuse us all with regard to the whole Fireball vs meteor
 >>>controversy and the Coyne helicopter sighting:

 >>>"Another secret weapon that might account for some of the
 >>>'foo-fighter' reports was an antiradar, unmanned device called
 >>>the `Feuerball,' or Fire Ball. Piloted by remote control, the
 >>>Fire Ball was designed to interfere with the ignition systems
 >>>and radar operation of Allied bombers. According to author
 >>>Renato Vesco, the `Feuerball' was `a highly original flying
 >>>machine... circular and armored, more or less resembling the
 >>>shell of a tortoise, and was powered by a special turbojet
 >>>engine, also flat and circular, whose principles of operation...
 >>>generated a great halo of luminous flames... Radio controlled at
 >>>the moment of take-off, it then automatically followed enemy
 >>>aircraft, attracted by their exhaust flames, and approached
 >>>close enough to wreck their radar gear."

 >>Sue,

 >>Your own experiences aside, you really shouldn't go through life
 >>putting much stock in anything Jim Marrs or Renato Vesco has to
 >>say about this, that, or the other.

 >>Dennis Stacy

 >Hi Dennis,

 >Why? I'm serious as I can be. I don't know a thing about "who's,
 >who"! I've read a couple of Marrs' books. He seems quite able to
 >piece together bits of trivia without flying off on tangents.
 >I'm not saying _everything_ I've read of his fits my
 >understanding or perception of reality. His PSI Spies pushes it
 >a bit for me. But, I filter everything through a very strict
 >mental gauntlet... which includes and can never preclude my
 >personal experiences. If the information I receive tends to
 >correlate with my experience, and I am uncomfortable with the
 >conclusions I begin to form, I try to find other information
 >which may unlock the mystery.

 >I would deeply appreciate your clear thinking on this matter, as
 >well as some of the other researchers. Dennis, as uncomfortable
 >as it may be for you to allow the whole picture to come into
 >focus, please try. You can just imagine how "splattered" I felt
 >when I read that little piece of info.


Sue,

I don't know about Marrs because I haven't read him, but Vesco
definitely can not be trusted. Ask any of the serious Italian
researchers. He is not scholarly and includes many whoppers. One
that I recall was that he had B-29s operating in Europe. They
operated only in Asia.

I have his 'Intercept UFO' (1968) in front of me as I write
this, and his "aviation history" regarding secret German
aircraft is largely speculation and wild imagination that have
since been proven false. Several new, thoroughly researched
books about German aerial technology have been published in
recent years, and they do not support Vesco's view of things.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 9

              Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:42:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Tonnies


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 8 Jul 2001 13:08:41 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

<snip>

 >The statement that UFOs are "grown" rather than manufactured may
 >be much closer to the truth than any one of us suspects.

 >Exactly, John. Something my contactee friend, Orfeo Angelucci,
 >wrote in his book 'Secret of the Saucers (1955)". He said that
 >saucers were grown just as crystals were grown, in a solution.

That description comes right out of K. Eric Drexler's seminal
book on nanotech, "Engines of Creation," which was published in
the early 90s. One abductee was told by the "aliens" that "we
rearrange atoms." This was in '85.

If the UFO phenomenon represents physical visitors from some
other planet, then even improbable things like walking through
walls can be explained in nanotechnological terms (specifically
the concept of "utility fog," which is apparently encountered
again and again in the UFO literature).


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 >
   Jul > Jul 9

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 10 Jul 2001 12:53:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:45:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 21:19:07 -0000

 >>From: Grant Cmaeron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Date: 6 Jul 2001 19:34:43 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:33:06 -0000

<snip>

 >Etc., etc., ad nauseum. With all due respect, Grant, you are
 >here simply repeating the story told by Sheehan without
 >acknowledging or responding to the many factual errors, claims
 >that do not fit with the way Washington works, and other
 >questionable assertions that have been ponited out to you by me,
 >Brad Sparks, and Jan Aldrich. Repetition is not truth.

Your claims of factual error are based on standard Washington
protocols.

You, Sparks, and Aldrich may have been there, done that, and
have the teeshirt regarding to how things are done in
Washington. Those of us uninspired in the real world must
continue to search for documents and interview those who were
involved to get our answers.

 >You then assert:

 >>The two [significant] UFO reports were again written by Marsha Smith
 >>and were described by Sheehan.

 >>They were completed in 1977. From Sheehan's description of the
 >>reports, they were no high school level papers. He knew about
 >>the papers, because as special consultant to the CRS, he played
 >>a role in researching the papers. He also read a final copy of
 >>the two reports before they were sent off to the House Science
 >>and Technology Committee.

 >Is there any documentation whatsoever of Sheehan having served
 >as a consultant to CRS?

Excellent question. We will search and find out. Search for
documents, and ask those who were there. The proper approach.

 >>4. According to Sheehan in a phone conversation with this
 >>author, there were no classification marking on the reports that
 >>left the Congressional Research Office for the House.

 >Then why isn't it open public knowledge?

Because it was on its way to the House. Sheehan has no idea if
it was classified after it left, or what ultimately became of
the report.


Grant







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 10

                         UFO UpDates Back Up - Again

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:03:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:03:48 -0400
Subject: UFO UpDates Back Up - Again




From: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>


Gentle [and long suffering] Subscribers & Readers at the
Archive,


On getting back from the radio station Saturday night/Sunday
morning I found that Windows had burped badly and blown itself
out of operating mode.

I spent much of Sunday trying to salvage and re-install.

On Sunday evening my tower started to beep and the running light
was flashing. Thanks to the Asus heat monitoring system I was
able to shut down immediately and prevent heat damage to the
CPU and circuitry on the motherboard. However, the cooling
fan in the PSU had quit and the wiring bundle plastic clips had
melted-down on to the circuit board in the power supply.

I replaced the PSU yesterday and returned to doing the Windows
re-install last night.

The ATI All-In-Wonder AGP card is a further challenge - its
drivers always get dumped in the reinstall process and the
instructions I was sent in February by an ATI tech proved
ineffectual. Much of this morning was spent on the phone with
ATI support [fortuitously a local-call] getting the latest
drivers and Multi-Media Control Panel sofware installed.

All of which is to apologise for the lack of mail these past
couple of days and to let you know that it will start flowing
again, [fingers, eyes, ears and nose, crossed] in the next
little while.

I'll be 'back-filling' the Archive. Readers of this missive
via the Archive may want to go back to Sunday last and catch
up on what were empty cells in the grid there.....


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 >
   Jul > Jul 10

                  Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials -

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:31:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:28:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials -


 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:32:57 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

Mac Tonnies wrote:

 >We'll probably be making materials of this ourselves within a
 >matter of decades. I recommend K. Eric Drexler's "Engines of
 >Creation" for a comprehensive layman's look at how nanotech
 >will affect engineering, medicine, etc.

Not decades away - some apps are almost here now. The
Economist, July 7-13, 2001, issue, describes a new bone
substitute (for such apps as artificial hips, bone replacements
and repairs) that's built of nanocrystals - actually "grown"
from the molecule level up. The company, Angstrom Medica of
Cambridge, MA, calls the material NanOss. They are searching for
other potential apps for NanOss and similar nanocrystal
materials.

I also second the recommendation of Drexler's 'Engines of
Creation', as well as his other, more recent works. (And having
met Mr. Drexler on a number of occasions, I suspect he may be an
ET!)

See the web site of the Foresight Institute at:

http://www.foresight.org/

to keep up with the latest in nanotech.


Purrrrs...

wac









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 10

                        Re: The Nigerian Scam - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 06:45:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:30:50 -0400
Subject: Re: The Nigerian Scam - Hatch


 >Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:46:35 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: Michael Woods <mike.woods@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Nigerian Scam

 >Dear Listers,

 >After that recent posting about the Nigerian Letter/Fax/E-mail
 >scam, I thought you might be interested in this notice sent to
 >my work today. When the wire story moves on this news
 >conference, I'll forward to Errol for posting.

 >Mike Woods

 >-----------

 >Attention News/Assignment Editors:
 >Media Advisory - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

 >TORONTO, July 9 /CNW/ - The Royal Canadian Mounted Police
 >Toronto West Detachment Commercial Crime Section will be holding
 >a news conference on Tuesday July 10th, 2001 to announce the
 >successful end of a three year investigation into an
 >International "Nigerian Letter Fraud" scam.

 >Attending the conference will be members from the RCMP as well
 >as representatives from the United States Secret Service and the
 >Federal Bureau of Investigation.

 >Date: Tuesday July 10th, 2001

 >Time: 10:30 am

 >Location: RCMP Media Centre
 >           25 St. Clair Avenue East
 >           Suite 831
 >           Toronto, Ontario

 >           -0-   07/09/2001

 >For further information: Cst. Michele PARADIS, RCMP "O" Division
 >Media Relations officer at (416) 952-4619 office, (416) 715-2375
 >pager or (905) 691-3952 c-phone.
 >
 >CO:  Royal Canadian Mounted Police

 >-----------


Hello Mike:

Yes!  Please post the wire story. This is one item calling for
some closure.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 10

                       Re: Marcia Smith Letter - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:42:05 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:32:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Marcia Smith Letter - Hall


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 8 Jul 2001 19:09:05 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Marcia Smith Letter

 >Ms. Smith,

 >I have written you to get clarification from you about a story
 >that is being told about a report you may have written back in
 >the days of the Carter administration. I am a researcher here in
 >Canada working on stories and documents related to U.S.
 >Presidents and the UFO phenomena.

 >The story I am interested in is being told by Christic Institute
 >Director Daniel Sheehan, who has publically, on a number of
 >occasions, told about his personal involvement inside the CRS.
 >He has also confirmed these statement to me by phone. For the
 >record, Daniel has stated that the reports he was helping with,
 >dealt with UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence. He is on
 >record as stating these reports were researched and written up
 >in 1977 after President Carter came to office.

 >It was your friend James Oberg who first asked me what your
 >reaction was to a draft of an article I had circulated on the
 >Internet, for comment and correction, related to Sheehan story.
 >I probably should have asked your comment prior to posting the
 >article.

 >Mr. Oberg told me of a brief conversation you and he had about
 >your authoring of "The UFO Enigma." Apparently, it was not your
 >favorite essay topic. Mr. Oberg said he too would be interested
 >in your position on the claims being made by Daniel Sheehan. He
 >provided me your e-mail so you could have a chance to comment. I
 >am willing to provide a copy of the article if you require it.

 >I would like you to help resolve the following questions.

 >1) Did you ask Daniel Sheehan to request UFO related files from
 >the Vatican Library?

 >2) Did Daniel Sheehan act as a special consultant to the
 >Congressional Research Office?

 >3) Did you write a report(s) for the House of Representatives
 >Committee on Science and Technology related to UFOs and/or
 >extraterrestrial intelligence?

 >4) Did you relate to Daniel Sheehan a story about a request
 >Jimmy Carter had made to former CIA Director George Bush related
 >to obtaining the information the government possessed on UFOs?

 >5) Did you or anyone you know obtain access for Daniel Sheehan
 >to see classified sections of the Blue Book Files?

 >6) Did you ask Daniel Sheehan to make a UFO presentation at the
 >Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California?

 >I hope you can assist me with some direction on all or at least
 >some of these important historical questions.

 >Grant Cameron

Grant,

Well done! Her reply (if any) will be of great interest. By the
way, I disagree completely with your earlier posting about
"protocols." This goes far beyond protocols to improbabilities
and even absurdities about how things are done in the U.S.
Government, even in high security situations; or maybe even
especially in them. You are yet to respond to the specific
points we have made. Let the debate continue. Your letter to
Smith is a good first step in clarifying the situation.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 10

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:17:52 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:34:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: 10 Jul 2001 12:53:54 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 21:19:07 -0000

 >>>From: Grant Cmaeron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>Date: 6 Jul 2001 19:34:43 -0700
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>>Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:33:06 -0000

 >> With all due respect, Grant, you are
 >>here simply repeating the story told by Sheehan without
 >>acknowledging or responding to the many factual errors, claims
 >>that do not fit with the way Washington works, and other
 >>questionable assertions that have been ponited out to you by me,
 >>Brad Sparks, and Jan Aldrich. Repetition is not truth.

Grant replied:

 >Your claims of factual error are based on standard Washington
 >protocols.

Grant,

This reminds me of the "Demon Theory" (Philosophy 101); you can
"explain" any and all things by invoking it. If you ask Aldrich,
Deuley, and others who in fact worked with highly classified
information, you will learn that far from suspending
"protocols," those situations often have even more stringent
rules about how you go about things.

Chiefly, you don't suddenly change the entire mission, and
purpose, of an agency (in this case CRS) and violate all
standard rules of procedure. Sorry; that amounts to a convenient
rationalization of a story that makes little sense on the face
of it.

CRS does not conduct scientific studies; ever; under any
circumstances. CRS does not work for the Executive Branch. It
would not even be by any stretch of the imagination an agency
that would be called in under special circumstances to conduct a
scientific study, because it did not and does not have the
expertise to do so.

Something is seriously wrong with Sheehan's story. It may be
misunderstandings or misinterpretations on his part, faulty
memory, or many other things. You cannot simply cast off our
very cogent objections by invoking the sudden appearance of
`nonstandard Washington protocols.'

 >You, Sparks, and Aldrich may have been there, done that, and
 >have the teeshirt regarding to how things are done in
 >Washington. Those of us uninspired in the real world must
 >continue to search for documents and interview those who were
 >involved to get our answers.

Maybe direct knowledge and experience should count for something?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 10

                        Re: The Nigerian Scam - Woods

From: Michael Woods <mike.woods@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:36:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:46:53 -0400
Subject: Re: The Nigerian Scam - Woods


Hello Listers,

Here as promised is a scalp of the Canadian Press story about an
arrest in the global Nigerian Letter Scam.

----------

Three arrested in Toronto after global police probe cracks
Nigerian scam

JAMES MCCARTEN

TORONTO (CP) - Three people have been arrested for their alleged
role in a Canadian wing of a notorious global con job known
around the world for decades as the Nigerian letter scam.

The arrests Tuesday follow a three-year investigation by a joint
task force that included members of the RCMP, the Federal Bureau
of Investigations and the U.S. Secret Service, said police Staff
Sgt. Darryl Ross.

"There's a lottery mentality out there," Ross told a news
conference as he explained how more than 300 victims of the
worldwide scam have each lost between $52,000 US and a whopping
$5 million US.

"Greed is a very good part of it. It's part of human nature."

Ross was unable to provide estimates of how much victims of the
Canadian branch of the scam had lost, but he said it's likely in
the millions. None of the money has ever been recovered.

Victims receive a letter, fax or E-mail from someone claiming to
be a Nigerian civil servant who has a legitimate claim to
millions of dollars resulting from "grossly over-invoiced
contracts," Ross said.

The letters explain that Nigerian laws prevent civil servants
from holding offshore accounts, and offers a significant portion
of the proceeds to the victim once they provide personal bank
account information.

The victim is also asked to send money, usually about $10,000
US, ostensibly for "legal fees and administration costs," Ross
said.

"Once the funds are sent, the hook is in."

In phase two of the scam, which was operating in Canada, the
perpetrators, posing as North American merchant bankers working
for the Nigerian Central Bank, contact the victim to say the
funds have arrived.

Additional fees for taxes, duties and environmental levies are
requested, ranging from $50,000 to "hundreds of thousands of
dollars," Ross said.

"The scam continues until the victim is broke," he said. "The
fraudulent business deal is never consummated."

Such telemarketing scams make for costly, time-consuming and
labour-intensive police work, said FBI special agent Harry
Penich, the assistant legal attache to the U.S. Embassy in
Ottawa.

"It is a bit like shoveling smoke," Penich said.

"It takes a substantial amount of effort to weave through all of
the dodges that the criminal telemarketer will put in front of
you. This is sophisticated, high-tech, organized crime."

Most of the victims linked to the alleged activities of the
three people arrested Tuesday are in the U.S., said Ross. The
Nigerian letter fraud rarely involves perpetrators and victims
who live in the same country.

Penich said joint investigations by Canadian and American
authorities resulted in more than 30 arrests during the last two
years. Authorities in the U.S. are content to see the suspects
tried in Canada and will not seek to have them extradited, he
added.

"Our government wants the crimes prosecuted and the perpetrators
brought to justice, and our government wants it done either in
Canada or the U.S., whichever is the best place to have it
done."

Ainsley Anthony Drakes, 34 and Richard Brewster, 33, both of
Toronto, and Wenceslaus Utomi, 47 of Richmond Hill, Ont. turned
themselves in to police Tuesday.

Each has been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit
fraud, fraud against the general public and laundering the
proceeds of crime.

� The Canadian Press, 2001

----------

Mike Woods

The truth can STAY out there
Send in a good FANTASY.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 10

             Scotland's 'Daily Record' - 'UFO Invasion' Article

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:44:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:44:05 -0400
Subject: Scotland's 'Daily Record' - 'UFO Invasion' Article




From: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>


Source: Scotland's 'Daily Record'

http://www.record-mail.co.uk/shtml/NEWS/P15S2.shtml


Tuesday, July 10, 2001


Ah So, UFO

TV crew from Japan claim they have proof that aliens are ready
to invade Scotland

Stand by for an alien invasion of Scotland - the Japanese have
spotted UFOs at a hotel in Gullane.

After years of telling the nation that little green men are
about to land, UFO-watchers are convinced they finally have the
proof they need to stop us all laughing.

But the most stunning discovery in the history of mankind was
not made by NASA, or the FBI, or even Agents Mulder and Scully.

The evidence comes from a Japanese TV crew who stuck a camera on
a hotel roof and left it there for a year.

The remote camera kept capturing strange balls of light hovering
in the skies above Gullane's Templar Lodge Hotel.

Who knows what is attracting these unearthly visitors to this
sleepy and scenic corner of East Lothian.

Maybe the Templar Lodge does great bar lunches, or they fancied
a quiet game of golf or a dip at the village's famous beach.

Whatever it is, they're here, according to UFO expert Ron
Halliday, who has spent years trying to persuade us we're not
alone.

Now, finally, he is convinced his days of being branded a crank
are over.

He said: "Sceptics cannot continue to scoff after this. The
Japanese film will silence many critics.

"It may be proof that aliens are targeting Scotland for a
landing.

"Could these objects be reconnaissance crews from another
planet? The prospects are mind-boggling. With this hard
evidence, scientists and sky- watchers will take such sightings
far more seriously in future."

The Japanese filmed several objects, all quite distinct, in
Gullane, the USA and Mexico for a UFO documentary.

They're so excited that they will only release the pictures at a
London premiere.

But to make sure we're all ready to welcome our guests when they
arrive, we've created an artist's impression of what the
spacecraft might look like.

Ron chairs the Scottish Earth Mysteries organisation, and often
gets reports of sightings from the "Bermuda Triangle" between
Edinburgh, Stirling and East Kilbride.

He says one video of the skies over East Kilbride showed a
Goblin-like creature in what looked like a rubber suit, moving
around a bright light just above the ground.

Another featured an odd-looking light with an "entity" stepping
out of it.

Locals in Bonnybridge, Stirlingshire, have described dozens of
UFO sightings in the last 10 years.

Ron insisted: "The reports we receive cannot all be imaginative
hoaxes. The people who come us are far too serious and sensible
to be making up stories just for the publicity."

Templar Lodge manager Stephen Prior said: "I'm a sceptic about
these things, but we'll see."

THEY ARE NOT ALONE

EAST Lothian is not the only Scottish location where alien-type
crafts have been spotted.

Only last month we told how Record photographer Mark Runnacles
caught a UFO on film over Glasgow at dawn.

His pictures clearly showed a glowing saucer-shaped object in the sky.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                  Re: UFOs & Government Protocols - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:06:00 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:59:47 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs & Government Protocols - Sparks


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 8 Jul 2001 00:05:45 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: UFOs & Government Protocols


 >Government Protocols about UFOs

 >In a discussion on the July 7, 2001 radio program 'Strange
 >Days... Indeed' I had a discussion with Dick Hall about
 >protocols in relation to the Daniel Sheehan case where he claims
 >he viewed classified Blue Book files in the basement of the
 >Madison Building in Washington D.C. in 1977. A number of readers
 >of Sheehan's account have stated it could not have occurred as
 >Sheehan claims the incident unfolded, because it did not follow
 >in many respects the protocols that normally would have taken
 >place in a similar type of case.

 >I made the statement that protocols are rarely if ever followed
 >in UFO cases handled by the government. I would add to this at
 >this point that on the low level "light in the sky" cases, the
 >government would follow a standard protocol. With any cases
 >where the integrity of the overall secrecy of the program is at
 >stake, the protocols would be entirely different from standard
 >government protocols.

 >Dick Hall seemed to be saying that in investigating UFO claims
 >it is important to compare the claim of the witness to protocols
 >commonly used in the government.


Grant,

You know, if you want to misunderstand what someone is saying
and pretend they are saying something else then proceed to knock
it down, this is called answering a "straw man argument." This
nebulous phrase "protocols" was evidently introduced as a
convenient term for the general idea that Sheehan's story
contradicts everything known about the Congressional Research
Service, Project Blue Book, and the actual sequence of events in
CIA Director Bush resigning before Carter became President. It
was not meant to be pushed as a formal term with exact
definition.

And I have been asking for documentation and you never once
responded by telling me that Sheehan claims to have been given
_copies_ of Marcia Smith's two 1977 reports supposedly prepared
at the instigation of President Carter.

So _where_ are these two reports Sheehan said he received? Why
not just produce them and let them answer the questions of how
and when they were prepared and at whose request, since those
are standard questions covered in the introductions?

 >I would like readers to comment on where they stand.

 >To start it out I would propose, as example, that the following
 >items clearly illustrate that standard protocols are not used in
 >critically important UFO cases.

 >1) The entire concept of MJ-12 (and the entire supporting
 >structure under it) does not follow standard protocols.

MJ-12's existence has never been proven and many points of
evidence of outright fraud in the alleged MJ-12 documents have
been turned up over the years. Most UFOlogists agree that MJ-12
is a fraud, and most would agree that nevertheless there is a
UFO coverup of some sort by the US Govt though I'm sure there is
a lot of disagreement over exactly what is covered up and how.
Very few UFOlogists cling to the notion that MJ-12 was real. So
one cannot cite MJ-12 as evidence for not following "protocols."
Here, some of the arguments against MJ-12 has included poiting
out the Eisenhower Briefing Document (EBD) hoaxers' clumsy
invention of a nonexistent numbering system for purported
"Special Classified Executive Orders" by Truman that uses the
date as "# 092447" which doesn't appear on the bogus alleged
Executive Order itself, and in fact the alleged Truman document
calls itself a "Memorandum" and nowhere is designated an EO. The
hoaxers apprently tried to dress up the EBD's attachments list
with a lot of official-looking gobbledygook without doing a
whole lot of research to get it right.

 >2) The fact that not all UFO cases ended up in Project Blue Book
 >clearly show that protocols for collecting, evaluating, and
 >making cases public was not always followed. I would propose
 >that the cases that were handled with secondary protocols, were
 >the ones that provided the best evidence of the reality of the
 >UFO phenomena.

You are misunderstanding the point here. The point is that
Project Blue Book had no "classified section" that Sheehan could
be shown on a microfilm reel as if "Project Blue Book" was a
thing or a file box. BB was an organization. When you say that
there were UFO cases that didn't end up in BB then that means
they didn't end up in BB whether a "classified section" or not.
That would prove nothing about Sheehan's story.

 >3) The destruction of the Roswell Air Base administrative and
 >outgoing messages without proper documentation of who destroyed
 >the records and under what authority, for the time period of the
 >Roswell incident shows clearly protocols are not always
 >followed. Again the key deciding fact appears to be the
 >important of the case or in this case records.

Allegedly, the "protocols" - National Archives regulations and
schedules for records retention which are administrative _laws_
of the land issued under authority of federal statute - allowed
for the destruction. What you have here is not a violation of
"protocols" but a suspiciously convenient and fastidious
enforcement of them as to the Roswell AAF communications files
for 1946-9, which was probably not so fastidiously enforced for
other air field records for 1946-9.

 >4) In 1959 the CIA and USAF investigated a woman by the name of
 >Mrs. Swan. She claimed to be in contact with an alien. She
 >taught the procedure of contact to a Navy officer who
 >demonstrated the technique at the CIA photographic lab where all
 >the U-2 photos were analyzed. CIA officer and director of the
 >lab, Art Lundahl, called in Blue Book head Robert Friend. Friend
 >watched the officer perform the contact. Friend was very
 >impressed with the demonstration calling it totally unique. He
 >wrote a report and suggested that the woman be investigated by
 >Duke University. At this point a General told him "another
 >agency was investigating, we should drop it." In this case, the
 >protocols for the handling of UFO information was clearly
 >changed to a higher different set of protocols.

I don't see that at all. Blue Book had no charter for
investigating psychic phenomena. I talked to both Lundahl and
Friend in the 70's about this case and they said they'd taken it
as far as it could be taken.

 >5) The total lack of UFO records inside the executive branch
 >shows clearly that the protocols of the President being in
 >charge are being avoided, or the Presidential records are
 >elsewhere, which breaks with protocol for the release of
 >Presidential records.

I don't understand what you mean here. The entire BB files and
CIA files on UFO's were "inside the executive branch." So were
NSA's, DIA's, the FBI's, etc. etc.

 >6) Finally, in a non UFO situation, but involving a key UFO
 >personality, I present the words of General Nathan Twining
 >discussing protocols used during the development of the ICBM.
 >"We just moved in and violated all the rules. We didn't have the
 >procedures. They (Congress) knew the bills would be paid, and if
 >one were asked to do something by Schiever's group, a company
 >say, they knew they were going to get paid and everything was
 >alright. They went ahead and did the job." The interviewer
 >conducting the oral history for Columbia University asked, "the
 >statutes weren't actually changed then--." Twining replied, "no,
 >no." Asked by the interviewer, "just ignored?" Twining replied,
 >"That's right. That's right. We accomplished a great deal, I'll
 >tell you."

That proves what? That statutes _were_ violated with UFOs? All
Twining was saying by "violated all the rules" is an expression
meaning they broke the bureaucratic rules of red tape. Adm
Rickover did the same with nuclear submarine and fleet ballistic
missile development. That didn't mean that Twining hired the
Congressional Research Service to design the ICBM! Rickover
didn't contact anyone from the Vatican for help in designing
nuclear reactors!

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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                      Re: Serious Research - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:31:57 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:03:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Strickland


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 00:01:37 -0400

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:24:31 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:38:00 -0600

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 20:22:24 -0000

 >>>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:44:45 EDT
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Dear Dick, Jan, Brad, Dennis, Alfred, all well-informed (and
otherwise ill-informed... like myself),

I will take another 20 lashes. Please, you will note that the
von Braun/Oppenheimber mistake was _mine_ and is _not_ in
quotes. I am truly sorry. I do know that von Braun was not at
Los Alamos in an official capacity, and that Oppenheimer was
head of the A-bomb think tank. My chemistry teacher in high
school was also on that team... at least that's what he said!

I do appreciate all the good and wise info you all have given on
this subject. I do have to agree with all of you that it is too
bad that what would otherwise appear to be factual is laced with
trash. It makes it difficult to know what to believe.

BTW, I welcome Dennis' and other debunker's comments on this
List. You probably wouldn't understand that, unless you were an
abductee. It's kinda like having your parents asleep in the next
room... close is good, even if they don't believe a word you
tell them.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

               Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Sparks

From: Brad Spaarks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:40:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:14:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Sparks


 >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Date: 8 Jul 2001 13:08:41 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 ><snip>

 >>The statement that UFOs are "grown" rather than manufactured may
 >>be much closer to the truth than any one of us suspects.

 >>Exactly, John. Something my contactee friend, Orfeo Angelucci,
 >>wrote in his book 'Secret of the Saucers (1955)". He said that
 >>saucers were grown just as crystals were grown, in a solution.

 >That description comes right out of K. Eric Drexler's seminal
 >book on nanotech, "Engines of Creation," which was published in
 >the early 90s. One abductee was told by the "aliens" that "we
 >rearrange atoms." This was in '85.

Star Trek transporters "rearrange atoms" and that science
fiction series goes back to 1966.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                                 John Hopf?

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:26:30 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:06:38 -0400
Subject: John Hopf?


Hi list,

Does anyone know if John Hopf formerly of APRO (circa 1959) is
still alive and where he may be contacted?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                        Re: Serious Research - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:20:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:08:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:40:26 -0000

 >>From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:20:59 -0600

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:08:36 -0500

<snip>

 >Sue,

 >I don't know about Marrs because I haven't read him, but Vesco
 >definitely can not be trusted. Ask any of the serious Italian
 >researchers. He is not scholarly and includes many whoppers. One
 >that I recall was that he had B-29s operating in Europe. They
 >operated only in Asia.

 >I have his 'Intercept UFO' (1968) in front of me as I write
 >this, and his "aviation history" regarding secret German
 >aircraft is largely speculation and wild imagination that have
 >since been proven false. Several new, thoroughly researched
 >books about German aerial technology have been published in
 >recent years, and they do not support Vesco's view of things.


Sue, Dick, List,

This is precisely the problem with Jim Marrs, who is a Master
Regurgitator, taking, accepting, and promoting any and
everything found within the UFO literature as UFO "fact."

If you read his "The Alien Agenda" closely, including his
footnotes, you'll find that he did very little original research
and few interviews on his own, while implying the opposite.
Mostly, he just read the available literature and cherry-picked
the more sensational parts that supported his own paranoid point
of view.

Frankly, as a fellow Texan, I'm embarrassed. But then I work for
the CIA...


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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                          Filer's Files #28 -- 2000

From: George Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:14:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:31:51 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #28 -- 2000


Filer's Files #28 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
July 8, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts, Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

UFOs reports from New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas,
Washington, Oregon, California, United Kingdom, Rumania,
Bulgaria and Russia.

MISSING PERSONS -- The National News is full of reports about
the Washington, DC Chandra Levy the intern who is missing. She
allegedly had a "boyfriend" in the FBI. Now the story is that
she had an affair with Congressman Gary Condit who is a member
of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The
most important fact is that neither man knows where she has
gone. Nationwide 876,000 Americans were reported missing last
year. Most were runaway teenagers. However, the shocking truth
is that thousands are never found either alive or dead and
remain missing. Perhaps someone will start looking and asking
questions about this large number of missing persons? These
include my wife's cousin Bob, who went out running in 1969 and
has never been found despite a search by thousands. I have
noticed that whenever there is a wave of UFO sightings in a
particular area, there are also many missing persons reported
in the same area. I wonder if there could be a connection?

NEW JERSEY FLYING CHEVRON UFO

WAYNE -- The witness was driving on June 2, 2001, at 6:00 PM,
with his daughter when she noticed a black Flying Chevron in
the sky. It had no lights and made no noise. It had a "V" shape
and was flat on the top and bottom. It was probably less than
1000 feet high up. We just watched for about eight minutes,
when it started to rise. It seemed like it was suspended there
and slowly rotated once and then stopped. It to turn one side
towards the sky and ascend rather fast. I think it looked rod
shaped because of the position it was in as it rose. I watched
it until it disappeared into the clouds. It looked like a
pencil line in the clouds. It had no cockpit or front end like
a plane has. I can't believe the good daylight view we had of
it. It maneuvered itself so easily as if had no trouble with
gravity. It's hard to explain. Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC
www.ufocenter.com

NEW YORK CHERRY UFO SEEN FROM PLANE

LONG ISLAND -- This UFO sighting took place from a plane an
hour after the Wayne New Jersey sighting and only twenty miles
apart. A couple and their two children (girl 5, boy 1) and two
friends were bound for Martha's Vineyard on an eight seat
private jet on June 2, 2001. The witness states, "We took off
from Teterboro Airport in NJ at 6:45 PM in thick cloud cover.
When the aircraft came up out of the clouds about seven minutes
after take off we broke out into bright sunlight." My friend
who was seated in front of me, by the right wing of the
aircraft called out "what the *$#@ is that?" Immediately I
looked out of my window at 7:00 PM. "Behind us on the right
side of the plane and some distance above, perhaps 1000 to 3000
feet was this large rusty red boomerang shaped object
silhouetted against the bright blue sky." We were now above
storm and had a good view. The craft had no windows or lights
visible and was about the size of a large 747 jet aircraft. It
hovered in ! place for several seconds before we lost sight of
it. My friend, who had first sighted it, for a greater duration
said it looked as if it had bulbous shapes, which joined to
form the boomerang or Flying Chevron. We both agreed, however
on the size and color of the object. My 5-year-old daughter
also caught a glimpse of the object. Due to the storm below us
we thought it could have been some weather-monitoring balloon.
By this time in the flight we were probably quite near J.F.K
and LaGuardia airport. The total flight was 35 minutes. The UFO
resembled nothing I have ever seen. Especially the red cherry
color struck us as odd. We meant to ask the pilot, but in all
the excitement we forgot. Thanks to NUFORC

BROOKLYN -- Shemlan reports two UFOs were flying over Northwest
Brooklyn towards the northeast at 6:30 PM, June 25, 2001. The
objects were flying with large distance in between, 20 to 30+
seconds in between. The speed was equal to a commercial
aircraft. The objects appeared to be close, but no wings or
shapes were discernible. They were sphere-like objects with a
whitish contrail flying only a few hundred feet over my home.
It was only 200 to 400 feet away! These craft were inline with
the UFOs path, which were seen only a day or two later. Thanks
to Shemlan shemlan@usa.net

PENNSYLVANIA SMALLER WHITE OBJECT TRAILS LARGER ONE

READING -- While at the Reading W.W.II reenactment, we were
watching, with binoculars, several aircraft doing flybys on
June 10, 2001. As we looked to the SW, I spotted what looked at
first like a white balloon being carried upwards very rapidly
at 4:25 PM. The cloud deck was at about 8,000 feet and the
object went above them to about 10,000 feet and then hovered as
if caught in an air pocket. Several other people thought it
looked like a grocery type white bag, but there was a smaller
piece of a white object that we saw traveling along with the
larger "bag". It looked unattached. After about 15 minutes of
being "motionless" the objects started to climb higher until
they were out of site to the SW. About 25 people around us saw
and watched the objects climb. I've been to many airshows over
the years and never saw anything like this before - it
definitely was not a balloon. I was monitoring the radio
frequencies of the airport, but nothing was mentioned about the
object.

VIRGINIA LAWYER OR DOCTOR NEEDED

ROANOKE -- We need your help! A fellow who has an extremely
high IQ and is a graduate from California Institute of
Technology and is a PhD of physics is in trouble related to his
activity in the UFO field. He called and said he was now locked
inside a Virginia Sanitarium here because of his interest in
UFOs and a UFO abduction experience on June 8, 2001 at 10:00 PM
in a park in Roanoke. He said he was walking in the park when
he decided to ask and prayed for a UFO to appear.  He said soon
a giant triangle came over him and all the lights in the park
went off. He blacked out. Later he found himself on his way
home thinking no time had passed. When he reached the house he
realized that several hours had passed. He had an experience of
missing time. He told friends at work and family and ended up
being committed.

Editor's Note: If any lawyer or Medical Doctor is willing to
help please e-mail me at Majorstar@aol.com. I'm told that many
people who claim to have a UFO encounter have been put into
mental homes. I think it is time to fight for the rights of
people who experience UFO encounters.

NORTH CAROLINA FLYING TRIANGLE

CHADBOURN -- June 5, 2001, 4:09 AM I was in my yard as we live
in a rural area, and we enjoy looking at the stars. My wife and
I enjoy the evening stars. We thought it was a military
aircraft, but my husband built aircraft, and said that is not
one of ours, including those at Area 51. The total sighting
lasted six minutes.

OHIO UFO LANDING

WEST MANCHESTER - Ginny Rose called to say during a limited
phone call on July 2, 2001, the person observing a UFO landing
served in the Marine Corps. He is a former Marine security
police with a Top Secret clearance where he guarded Nuclear
Submarines. He recently started working at the same place where
I have been employed. Last night at work the subject of this
came up and he told what he had seen happen. He said about
12:30 AM at night he saw a UFO land in West Manchester over
Harter's Woods about two weeks ago. He said he has seen them
flying around here in West Manchester before this happened,
especially over that wooded area. I told him I have seen them
land and take off from the ground, too. They also shoot objects
out of them that fly away on their own power. They also
communicated to me telepathically. The phone call was
interrupted by strange sounds and suddenly terminated. Ohio
MUFON is investigating. Thanks to Virginia Rose
burgess@voyager.net

MICHIGAN SILVER TEARDROP UFO

THREE RIVERS -- On Thursday, July 5, 2001, at 6:10 PM on the
way home from work, about a mile from my house, I spotted a
silver teardrop shaped object in the northwest sky. The sky was
a nice and blue that day, and the object was only visible for a
moment and then disappeared. Thanks to Alan D. Otterson
alancath@gte.net

MINNESOTA ORANGE BALLS OF LIGHT

MUFON State Director William McNeff reports they are
investigating strange orange balls of light seen on April 30
and May 4, 2001, at around 11:30 PM. The weather was clear. No
ceiling, visibility 10+ miles and very little wind, and there
were no thunderstorms or any storms during that day. This
definitely was not balling lighting. I've been meaning to fly
around that area during the day to see if there is a good
explanation for this. It is amazing to see the same
descriptions of color. I'll let you know if I find anything on
the flight: Orange Ball of Light seen near Mille Lacs Lake
about April 30, 2001. A friend of mine had a close encounter,
coming within perhaps 100 feet, with a UFO in southern
Minnesota in 1979. He writes,

"Hi Bill -- "I had another interesting event flying [a light
plane] from Thief River Falls to Minneapolis about two months
ago. It was about 11:30 at night. I was at 7500 feet MEL and
there was a bright orange object about my 2:00 position near
Mille Lacs Lake. It was higher than the ground because it was
lighting the area below the light. It was a larger and brighter
light than any of the surrounding lights -- but it was still
quite a bit lower than I was. I was watching it for a few
minutes (it was stationary) and then the controller called and
I had to change frequencies and next thing I knew the light was
gone. A while later I was near the lake and now at my 3 o'clock
position was the light again. I was about ready to call the
controller and ask if they had any traffic lower and at my 3:00
and about then the light went out." Thanks to William McNeff
w.mcneff@worldnet.att.net

Editor's Note: The orange plasma glow around the craft are
frequently reported. White lights at a distance will often
appear yellow or orange.

OKLAHOMA FLYING TRIANGLE

I just had another incredible sighting at 10:14 PM. Tonight is
June 21, 2001, and I was taking a bag of trash out to the cans
and before I walked outside, I had an intuition to take my
camera with me. Sure enough about five seconds after coming out
of my house, I saw a Triangular craft coming from the east at
about 10,000 feet with three big white lights on each end and
small red lights on the bottom, maybe the same craft Linda and
I saw on May 7, 2001. Even more amazing was the fact that I
took four shots of this craft with a Sony 10x Digital camera
and I had the craft centered in the view finder and not one of
them turned out. It was pretty incredible. Thanks to Bill
Hamilton.

TEXAS UFO LANDINGS REPORTED

FORT HOOD -- John W. writes that in 1985, not long after the
initial publicity about the Cash-Landrum investigated by
MUFON's John Shuessler, I received information on Ft. Hood. Two
women her granddaughter driving in southeast Texas at night on
December 29, 1980, were over flown at low altitude by a bright,
slow-moving UFO accompanied by many military black helicopters.
They subsequently suffered UFO burns and severe radiation
sickness symptoms for which they sued the US Government. I
received information from a correspondent suggesting that the
Fort Hood Military Reservation, fairly close by in central
Texas, contained a secret underground base housing captured
and/or US-made UFOs being test-flown from there. There are
stories that indicate a US Air Force Base and a nuclear weapons
facility were there. Because of the Cash-Lundrum case, I was
very interested in the information I received as it suggested a
likely secret base for the UFO involved in that incident. The
late! Leonard Springfield's reports on UFO crash/retrievals and
back-engineering also suggested it. To explore this possibility
further, I wrote to the editors of local newspapers circulating
in the towns nearest Fort Hood, namely Gatesville, Killeen,
Lampasas, Belton, and Temple, Texas, asking if they had any
information. They very kindly cooperated, apparently publishing
my letters and address, and I soon received a number of letters
from people who said they formerly worked with captured or
US-made UFOs in a secret underground part of Ft. Hood, or were
family of such former workers, or had seen UFOs taking off from
or landing in a restricted part of Ft. Hood. They took
photographs just outside the restricted area, of a hillside in
the restricted area, which was supposed to have large concealed
doors in it leading to an underground hangar. One former worker
there, with a high security clearance, claimed to be dying of
cancer as the result of having worked with the UFOs stored! and
test-flown there. Thanks to John W.:

TEXAS FLYING SUBMARINE WHISTLES OVER TREETOPS

ALVIN -- Three teenage witnesses were outside when they heard a
loud whistle and humming sound on June 6, 2001. They looked up
and saw a craft that resembled a "flying submarine" with three
lights on it (red in front, then green, then blue all in a line
on the right side). It appeared right over their heads at 8:42
PM just above the tree line by the house. The UFO followed the
driveway down to the next tree line, whereupon it suddenly shot
off upwards and to the right and quickly disappeared towards
the almost full moon in the northeast sky. The object was
charcoal gray color in the dark night sky. The three lights on
the object were blinking rapidly like a strobe. All of the
witnesses were frightened by the experience. They include a
recent high school graduate (18) and two females (17 and 15).
They immediately notified me (stepfather to one of the
witnesses). There is a slight possibility of about 20 minutes
of missing time but not all of them can agree on this.

CALIFORNIA HOVERING CRAFT

WOODLAND HILLS - Tom writes that on June 29, 2001, at
approximately 8:30 PM. my friend and I were just leaving my
house to go to work when he pointed to distant object in the
sky. It was close to dusk and the object was backlit by the
sunset and looked to be due north of us on the opposite side of
the San Fernando Valley. The craft was hovering over the Santa
Susana Pass about three miles away and about 2000 feet
altitude. This is a test site for Rockwell International, now a
subsidiary of Boeing. We saw a dark, diamond-shaped silhouette
about size of a mini-van. The weather was clear and this was
not an atmospheric anomaly. What immediately struck me about
the object was its apparent solidity and unnatural
motionlessness. Both my friend and I have worked around
aircraft. It produced no exhaust plume nor any other
atmospheric disturbance and we could not hear any noise
produced by any means of propulsion.

We observed the object for a total of about 15 minutes, during
which it did not move. However, after five minutes we noticed a
slight bobbing, which would was a few feet of vertical
movement. It was sudden and unnatural, as if the object were
about to fall but was able to catch itself and regain altitude.
My girlfriend and her friend also saw the object. Neither of
them knew what to make of it either so we drove towards the
pass. When we got about a mile away. we saw three helicopters
approach and circle the object at a distance of a few hundred
feet. They Helicopters were flying with navigation lights and
appeared larger than the object, but night was falling fast and
the object did not have any lights. We lost sight of the object
behind some trees and after the area came back up in our line
of sight, the helicopters were circling alone. I parked the car
over a a mile away from the Santa Susana Pass and we watched
the helicopters leave.

My mother saw a similar dark, diamond-shaped object without
lights twice during the last two weeks around dusk. She was
over the 5 and 118 Freeway Interchange and she phoned several
coworkers who were heading for work who also saw it. My father
claims no Boeing aircraft were flying during these periods.
What puzzles me is what purpose it would serve flying over the
San Fernando Valley, riling up helicopters for an intercept?
Thanks to hedonisme@earthlink.net

WASHINGTON ORANGE OBJECT WITH OTHER FASTER OBJECTS BREAKING
AWAY

PUYALLUP -- Two witnesses, a 15 year old boy and his mother age
40 were coming home from the store at 10:30 PM on June 11,
2001. The teenager was watching something out the back window
that he said, was not a plane. He takes flight lessons and
likes to watch the skies. Both witnesses saw an Orange colored
round object above them that was moving slowly southwest. It
had some type of an extension that seemed to circle the whole
object continuously as it moved. Then it stopped, and as it
started again it headed more in a western direction. Then a
bright orange object shot off of it very fast and went south
and was gone. As it moved another bright but very small object
shot off and went in the same direction as the main object.
This happened several more times and they all disappeared. My
son and I were just awestruck. A second witness also reported
seeing the same object ten minutes earlier. On my way home
going west on 112 something caught my eye to the south. It had
a ! red light that moved right to left. I only saw the light on
one side, but I got a glimpse of the rest the object and it was
like an olive. It was dark cloudy and rainy and I lost sight of
it quickly. Thanks to Peter Davevenport and NUFORC.

OREGON FIREWORKS AND UFO

PORTLAND -- Robert White writes, "I am here in Oregon, and just
watched the fort Vancouver fireworks on TV and possibly saw a
UFO fly through. Can you ask if anyone in the Portland area
recorded the fireworks? If they did, the "craft" I am speaking
of flew from left to right on the screen at approximately 10:33
PM or about 7 minutes prior to the start of the grand finale.
This craft stood out because it was too bright to be a plane
and didn't strobe like other planes. It was flying too straight
to be a stray fireworks. Thanks to Robert White
Raiderob@hotmail.com

UNITED KINGDOM UFO WAVE

LONDON -- Russel Callaghan writes that UFO Magazine has been
presented with some amazing daylight UFO footage recorded over
Lewisham, London on July 1st 2001. Whatever Christopher filmed
brings back some of the dozens of reports we have seen
describing 'Boomerang or Triangular' UFOs. You can watch the
video at www.ufomag.co.uk.

WEST WILTSHIRE -- An UFO was spotted June 13, 2001, by two sets
of witnesses over Semington and Trowbridge between 10:20 and
11:10 PM. Eyewitness Roger White saw a bright light at 11:10 PM
over Semington. "It seemed to be moving slowly," he said. "At
first I thought it was a planet but it was too bright." A
strange craft was reported 50 minutes later at around by four
people in Trowbridge. Witness Nichola Winney said the object
featured three lights in a triangle formation. She said it
blocked out the stars as it passed overhead, making a soft
droning sound as it moved. A UFO for sure, then.

DERBYSHIRE DALES -- The Matlock Mercury News of July 5, 2001,
reports, L. Alison (29) of Lant Lane says "I was watching Big
Brother and nothing usually drags me away from that!" she
joked. Software sales executive Alison watched the UFO for
around 30 seconds at 10:35 PM. She described it as disk-shaped
and having four green flashing lights, arranged in a square.
"I'm not a freak!" she insisted. "I'm not mad and I've never
ever seen anything like this before. "It was huge and must have
been 1,000 feet high. It was nothing like an airplane or star.
Someone else must have seen it." The craft made no movement.
Alison stepped outside to call her boyfriend from their garage
so he could share in the strange close encounter. L. Alison's
sighting is now the 27th in the Derbyshire Dales since last
September. The region is becoming widely known as a UFO hotspot
among enthusiasts and features extensively on websites all over
the world. Fox TV in America is filming a documentary a! bout
the famous Bonsall sighting in October and Nottingham's Four
Sheets Films is shooting another about the wider picture.

BULGARIA CIRCULAR CRAFT

SOFIA -- On June 23, 2001, at about 10:00 PM a reporter was
called by her next-door neighbor from her balcony of the
8-storey apartment building where they live. She pointed at the
sky where the reporter saw an unusual looking object. It was
fairly big, a tilted circular plane made of lights. It was
static and didn't move apart from a few brighter lights
revolving around the periphery clockwise. The movement of the
lights was at a constant speed of a full revolution per minute.
It didn't appear solid, on the contrary -- it looked as if it
was made of air and clouds and lights. But it stayed static and
the motion was constant -- for about an hour. It was aerial and
beautiful. The sky was clear, covered with stars, no clouds
were visible. The reporter had to go inside a few minutes and
when she returned, it was gone. Thanks to Dan
editor@ufozone.co.uk, http://www.ufozone.co.uk

NEW YORK FOX NEWS VIDEO

On July 2, 2001, and several succeeding days Fox News at
various locations around the US has been showing a video of a
helicopter flying over Manhattan with a passenger shooting a
video of a UFO. The Sci-fi Channel sought submissions from
viewers in their search for UFO videos last year. They received
an excellent video of the UFO, although the pilot does not
appear to see the object. The UFO comes from behind a building
and makes a high speed run at the helicopter and climbs up into
the atmosphere. MUFON's video expert Jeff Sainio analyzed the
film and feels it is unlikely a hoax. My friends who have an
advanced studio have also attempted to make similar videos for
advertising purposes. They have been unable to duplicate the
scene at considerable expense and professional expertise. For
those who claim this film is a hoax, I ask them to provide a
similar hoaxed video. I assure you it is tougher than you might
think to obtain realistic footage. I will happily put any o! n
my web site and give the developer credit.

RUMANIA UFO ENCOUNTER?

BUCHAREST -- A June 28, 2001, message to Jim Hickman reports, a
few minutes after 4:00 AM, the night shift personnel of a
business were alarmed by the sudden interruption of their
electric lighting on going to see whether there might be some
defect with the current intake, they observed a powerful light
over the city. They climbed a nearby hill and were able to see
an oval object of about 11 meters in diameter, which was
emitting a cold white light like a sodium lamp. Thanks to
Hickman Report thehickmanreport@prodigy.net LILJANA FUNEV

RUSSIA ALLEGED UFO DOGFIGHT OVER RUSSIAN AIRBASE!

SEROV -- The Weekly World News claims that, hundreds of
eyewitnesses reportedly watched 36 UFOs wage a spectacular
dogfight above a Russian air base! The aerial battlle that
lasted for about ten minutes lit up the sky with laser like
weapons. Many craft apparently were hit and damaged. The
dogfight allegedly occured on May 11, at 2:05 AM and was
witnessed by a Polish news reporter Igor Wroclawski. The craft
were described as 90 feet in diameter and the weapons fire was
like thunder. One fleet of UFOs withdrew while the second group
followed. Thanks to Vicky York at:
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/aliens_story.cfm?instanceid=12266

Editors Note: This is an unconfirmed report and we have been
unable to reach any of the alleged witnesses or verify any part
of the story. Russia denies the report but there have been
similar UFO dogfights reported over the Philadelphia area in
the past.

THE ANNUAL MUFON SYMPOSIUM will be held July 20 - 22, 2001 in
Irvine, California The MUFON SYMPOSIUM annually features the
top UFO researchers from around the world. This year is no
exception. There is no other place in the world where you can
hear and meet so many top UFO researchers and scientists at one
time. Everyone reading this flyer should attend a MUFON
SYMPOSIUM at least once. Attendance can be a life-changing
experience. http://www.mufon.com/home.html

PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO shots available and
data on their propulsion systems by US Navy Commander Graham
Bethune. Send $10 to G. Filer at 222 Jackson Road Medford, NJ
08055.

A 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 court
and convince a jury that UFOs are 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.! 95 (US) to: David Twichell, P.O. Box 511,
Trenton MI. 48183-0511

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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 10 Jul 2001 19:51:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:42:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:17:52 -0000

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>Date: 10 Jul 2001 12:53:54 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >Grant replied:

 >>Your claims of factual error are based on standard Washington
 >>protocols.

 >Grant,

 >This reminds me of the "Demon Theory" (Philosophy 101); you can
 >"explain" any and all things by invoking it. If you ask Aldrich,
 >Deuley, and others who in fact worked with highly classified
 >information, you will learn that far from suspending
 >"protocols," those situations often have even more stringent
 >rules about how you go about things.

EXACTLY, just as MJ-12 may have protocols, but they will not be
the standard protocols Washington is used to.

In a special access program with little oversight who is going
to know? What protocol where they folowing when they were
burning toxic wastes at Area-51? Called the protocol of do
whatever you want, just like Twining's description of the
development of the ICBM.

 >Chiefly, you don't suddenly change the entire mission, and
 >purpose, of an agency (in this case CRS) and violate all
 >standard rules of procedure. Sorry; that amounts to a convenient
 >rationalization of a story that makes little sense on the face
 >of it.

 >CRS does not conduct scientific studies; ever; under any
 >circumstances. CRS does not work for the Executive Branch.

Neither Sheehan or I said they did.

 >It would not even be by any stretch of the imagination an agency
 >that would be called in under special circumstances to conduct a
 >scientific study, because it did not and does not have the
 >expertise to do so.

Marcia Smith was identified by many as a "space expert" "Russian
space expert" "space policy expert." Lets not try and turn her
into someone without the expertise.

 >Something is seriously wrong with Sheehan's story. It may be
 >misunderstandings or misinterpretations on his part, faulty
 >memory, or many other things. You cannot simply cast off our
 >very cogent objections by invoking the sudden appearance of
 >`nonstandard Washington protocols.'

<snip>

You have your chance to talk to him and clear your concerns up.


Grant








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                      Re: Marcia Smith Letter - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 10 Jul 2001 19:55:41 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:46:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Marcia Smith Letter - Cameron


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Marcia Smith Letter
 >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:42:05 -0000

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Date: 8 Jul 2001 19:09:05 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Marcia Smith Letter

 >>Ms. Smith,

 >>I have written you to get clarification from you about a story
 >>that is being told about a report you may have written back in
 >>the days of the Carter administration. I am a researcher here in
 >>Canada working on stories and documents related to U.S.
 >>Presidents and the UFO phenomena.

 >>The story I am interested in is being told by Christic Institute
 >>Director Daniel Sheehan, who has publically, on a number of
 >>occasions, told about his personal involvement inside the CRS.
 >>He has also confirmed these statement to me by phone. For the
 >>record, Daniel has stated that the reports he was helping with,
 >>dealt with UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence. He is on
 >>record as stating these reports were researched and written up
 >>in 1977 after President Carter came to office.

<snip>

 >Grant,

 >Well done! Her reply (if any) will be of great interest. By the
 >way, I disagree completely with your earlier posting about
 >"protocols." This goes far beyond protocols to improbabilities
 >and even absurdities about how things are done in the U.S.
 >Government, even in high security situations; or maybe even
 >especially in them. You are yet to respond to the specific
 >points we have made. Let the debate continue. Your letter to
 >Smith is a good first step in clarifying the situation.

I will do what I can to resolve your concerns.

Grant









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:06:37 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:48:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: 10 Jul 2001 12:53:54 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 21:19:07 -0000

 >>>From: Grant Cmaeron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>Date: 6 Jul 2001 19:34:43 -0700
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>>Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:33:06 -0000

 ><snip>

 >>Etc., etc., ad nauseum. With all due respect, Grant, you are
 >>here simply repeating the story told by Sheehan without
 >>acknowledging or responding to the many factual errors, claims
 >>that do not fit with the way Washington works, and other
 >>questionable assertions that have been ponited out to you by me,
 >>Brad Sparks, and Jan Aldrich. Repetition is not truth.

 >Your claims of factual error are based on standard Washington
 >protocols.

<snip>

No, Grant, you yourself pointed out at least two factual errors
or contradictions in Sheehan's story: (1) Sheehan claimed that
Carter met with DCI Bush while Carter was President and that
that was when Bush purportedly refused to give CIA UFO
information to him, but you pointed out that was incorrect, Bush
left office at CIA before Carter became President. (2) Carter
therefore could not have had a "major confrontation with Bush"
because he wouldn't have been President yet while Bush headed
CIA.

The CRS doesn't build missiles or bridges, it doesn't analyze
spy satellite photos or have a hot line to Moscow, and it
doesn't investigate government corruption or audit records and
procedures. I'm giving these as examples of simple facts about
government agency functions, which have nothing to do with
"protocols." The fact that the GAO and OTA were Congressional
agencies that did do some of those things and yet weren't asked
to do Carter's UFO investigation and requesting of CIA
declassification of UFO documents is difficult to believe.
Marcia Smith certainly would have known or found out about other
Congressional agencies such as GAO and OTA being involved with
similar requests from Carter if she had been let in on such an
extremely sensitive political secret of the alleged CIA Director
Bush refusing to cooperate with President Carter's request for
UFO information.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 10 Jul 2001 20:46:53 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:55:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:24:58 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >This doesn't help any - _why_ would someone with Sheehan's
 >non-scientist political-religious background be asked by Marcia
 >Smith to give a briefing to JPL SETI personnel which takes one
 >away from UFO's (SETI's antagonism to UFO's is long-standing and
 >well-known)? That makes no sense. Nor does Sheehan asking for
 >"classified sections" of Blue Book (aside from the grammatical
 >absurdity, Blue Book was an activity, a project, not a thing or
 >a set of files). Why should he care about classified or not
 >classified in order to give a briefing to JPL SETI people?

 >Don't say few questions have been asked of Sheehan - I've asked
 >dozens now.

Every question that I think Danny would be able to answer has
been passed on. I really don't think Danny can answer the
question why he was picked to do a briefing at JPL. Maybe he
can. He has answered why he wanted the classified Blue Book
stuff.

Sheehan may address some of these questions in the couple
occasions when he talks on UFOs in the next couple weeks.

Lets wait and see what he says. Smith could answer all these
questions too, but I doubt she will. She has had the e-mail a
couple days now.


Grant









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 11

               CCCRN News: 07-10-01 Formation Report 2001 #4 -

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:31:06 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:57:39 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: 07-10-01 Formation Report 2001 #4 -


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

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

July 10, 2001

_____________________________


(UPDATE) FORMATION REPORT 2001 #4 - ETZIKOM, ALBERTA


Some ground photos of the 'crater', courtesy of the farmer, Ken
Masson are now on the web site. Additional images to be added
soon as well.

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/etzikom01.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:
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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

              Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 11 Jul 2001 06:50:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:05:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton


 >From: Brad Spaarks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:40:29 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>


 >>>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>>Date: 8 Jul 2001 13:08:41 -0700
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >><snip>

 >>>The statement that UFOs are "grown" rather than manufactured may
 >>>be much closer to the truth than any one of us suspects.

 >>>Exactly, John. Something my contactee friend, Orfeo Angelucci,
 >>>wrote in his book 'Secret of the Saucers (1955)". He said that
 >>>saucers were grown just as crystals were grown, in a solution.

The exact quote from the book is:

"Many of the flying saucers that we have seen in our skies are
actually crystal disks, grown in chemical baths. Like the stem
and capillaries of a leaf or flower, all the functioning systems
are grown into it. Therefore these systems could be utterly
invisible.." (Secret of the Saucers, 1955)

Nanotechnology is exploring various methods to achieve molecular
manufacturing. Other terms, such as molecular engineering or
molecular manufacturing are also often applied when describing
this emerging technology.

The concepts in nanotechnology are not necessarily arrived at from
initial reverse engineering studies IMO. They are simply a natural
evolution in thinking of what may be possible as a next step in
technology. However, someday when we have the opportunity to
study the thinking and learning processes of extraterrestrials,
we may find out that we advance forward down similar lines of
discovery and invention.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                   Re: UFOs & Government Protocols - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:06:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:08:13 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs & Government Protocols - Young


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 8 Jul 2001 00:05:45 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: UFOs & Government Protocols

 >I made the statement that protocols are rarely if ever followed
 >in UFO cases handled by the government. I would add to this at
 >this point that on the low level "light in the sky" cases, the
 >government would follow a standard protocol. With any cases
 >where the integrity of the overall secrecy of the program is at
 >stake, the protocols would be entirely different from standard
 >government protocols.

<snip>

 >I would like readers to comment on where they stand.

 >To start it out I would propose, as example, that the following
 >items clearly illustrate that standard protocols are not used in
 >critically important UFO cases.

 >1) The entire concept of MJ-12 (and the entire supporting
 >structure under it) does not follow standard protocols.

Grant, List:

#1 obviously comes under the "Government protocol" for sightings
of Santa Claus, his elves and the raindeer.

 >2) The fact that not all UFO cases ended up in Project Blue Book
 >clearly show that protocols for collecting, evaluating, and
 >making cases public was not always followed.

Not all UFO cases were supposed to end up in Blue Book, only
those unable to be successfully identified as IFOs by local base
personnel. There were also cases which involved genuine
intelligence and operational details.

 >I would propose that the cases that were handled with
 >secondary protocols, were the ones that provided the best
 >evidence of the reality of the UFO phenomena.

Whose "secondary protocols" were these? Please be very
specific, so as to answer your own question.

 >3) The destruction of the Roswell Air Base administrative and
 >outgoing messages without proper documentation of who destroyed
 >the records and under what authority, for the time period of the
 >Roswell incident shows clearly protocols are not always
 >followed. Again the key deciding fact appears to be the
 >important of the case or in this case records.

Maybe this is an example of the protocol first inunciated by
USAF Captain Edward Alowycius Murphy, now known as Murphy's Law.

How many other examples of missing U.S. Army records are there
for the same time period? Do you think that the ETs or MJ-12
ordered all of these documents destroyed? If a lot of the
trivial administrative and personnel records of the U.S. Army
Air Force for the period 1945 to 1949 is missing, what does this
say about the importance of the Roswell incident?

 >4) In 1959 the CIA and USAF investigated a woman by the name of
 >Mrs. Swan. She claimed to be in contact with an alien. She
 >taught the procedure of contact to a Navy officer who
 >demonstrated the technique at the CIA photographic lab where all
 >the U-2 photos were analyzed. CIA officer and director of the
 >lab, Art Lundahl, called in Blue Book head Robert Friend. Friend
 >watched the officer perform the contact. Friend was very
 >impressed with the demonstration calling it totally unique. He
 >wrote a report and suggested that the woman be investigated by
 >Duke University. At this point a General told him "another
 >agency was investigating, we should drop it." In this case, the
 >protocols for the handling of UFO information was clearly
 >changed to a higher different set of protocols.

This is the famous RHIP Protocol, "Rank Has Its Privileges".
Ever heard of it? This is a good example of one bureaucratic
agency tossing the ball to another.

 >5) The total lack of UFO records inside the executive branch
 >shows clearly that the protocols of the President being in
 >charge are being avoided, or the Presidential records are
 >elsewhere, which breaks with protocol for the release of
 >Presidential records.

Or that there just aren't any. And you know the protocols of
President Bush related to UFO information? Please cite them.

 >6) Finally, in a non UFO situation, but involving a key UFO
 >personality, I present the words of General Nathan Twining
 >discussing protocols used during the development of the ICBM.
 >"We just moved in and violated all the rules. We didn't have the
 >procedures. They (Congress) knew the bills would be paid, and if
 >one were asked to do something by Schiever's group, a company
 >say, they knew they were going to get paid and everything was
 >alright. They went ahead and did the job." The interviewer
 >conducting the oral history for Columbia University asked, "the
 >statutes weren't actually changed then--." Twining replied, "no,
 >no." Asked by the interviewer, "just ignored?" Twining replied,
 >"That's right. That's right. We accomplished a great deal, I'll
 >tell you."

Please list the UFO protocols that you know about and then
specific examples of their violation. Other than the Friend
example, which could just be bureacratic buck-passing, the rest
is just speculation.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                      Re: Serious Research - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:21:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:13:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Strickland


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:20:50 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:40:26 -0000

 >>>From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:20:59 -0600

 >>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:08:36 -0500


<snip>

 >>Sue,

 >>I don't know about Marrs because I haven't read him, but Vesco
 >>definitely can not be trusted. Ask any of the serious Italian
 >>researchers. He is not scholarly and includes many whoppers. One
 >>that I recall was that he had B-29s operating in Europe. They
 >>operated only in Asia.

 >>I have his 'Intercept UFO' (1968) in front of me as I write
 >>this, and his "aviation history" regarding secret German
 >>aircraft is largely speculation and wild imagination that have
 >>since been proven false. Several new, thoroughly researched
 >>books about German aerial technology have been published in
 >>recent years, and they do not support Vesco's view of things.

 >Sue, Dick, List,

 >This is precisely the problem with Jim Marrs, who is a Master
 >Regurgitator, taking, accepting, and promoting any and
 >everything found within the UFO literature as UFO "fact."

 >If you read his "The Alien Agenda" closely, including his
 >footnotes, you'll find that he did very little original research
 >and few interviews on his own, while implying the opposite.
 >Mostly, he just read the available literature and cherry-picked
 >the more sensational parts that supported his own paranoid point
 >of view.

 >Frankly, as a fellow Texan, I'm embarrassed. But then I work for
 >the CIA...

 >Dennis

Dear Dick, Dennis, Alfred, List,

Well, I took the book back to the library yesterday. I didn't
bother to read past page 80, because I trust your judgment. I
do. Obviously, Marrs' idea of research is not mine, and my idea
of research more closely approximates most skeptics,
unfortunately. That's true, too.

In reality, I recognize from whence my relief cometh. Groan. On
occasion, I still need to protect my misperceptions about the
dishonesty around which our political world revolves. I still
need to hide in the corner of my dark room with a paper bag over
my head, for one more second. Thank you, Alfred for allowing me
that truth. I do know better. Something is amiss. It has to do
with _not_ putting my personal experiences aside. I cannot. I
don't think any sane person could who has experienced the ETs,
up close, and personal.....

What I saw, I'd like to define, exactly. What I saw may have
been some kind of radar telemetry (like a bat's radar),
functioning for the mini-jet in hot pursuit. I have no idea what
that "white truck" was heading up the fly-by through the
canyon... but it did _not_ want to be caught, whatever it was.
That was evident.

It can't be much of a "black project" if we're flying like a bat
outta hell through Tijeras Canyon, NM down a switch-back,
2-lane, unlit road at 10:30 at night, and I see the same (or
similar) mini-jet 2 weeks later being transported, uncovered,
down Route 66 in broad daylight! Come on! It sure wasn't "ball
lightning" or "swamp gas" I saw.

It's interest to note how closely Vesco's "wild imagination" put
something _very_ similar to what was described in Marrs' book on
the drawing board, and made it workable. Or so it would seem,
based on what I saw flying through Tijeras Canyon in April,
1992.

It is to our human benefit to believe we are capable of reaching
the stars and galaxies beyond our own, on our own. If we believe
some other agency has interfered or intervened, it demeans the
physical success we achieve, as well as the ego and therefore
our soul. For, we could never be certain what part was wholly
our own creation, and what part the ETs. That is one reason I
think we are afraid. That is from whence my despair originates.
I _know_ the ETs have intervened. I think, perhaps, that is why
the ETs have refrained from landing on the Whitehouse lawn, and
may be working covertly within various governmental agencies to
enhance our technology covertly. They are behaving obliquely,
aiming for a positive long-term outcome. Are they saying, "we
are here to monitor your imaginative, evolutionary development,
not to thwart it by total intervention. If we give you
everything you need to "get to the stars," it will not be your
creation, and you will not appreciate its power and
responsibility. Just as your elected officials misused the power
inherent in the concepts and principles of nuclear fission."

They may _not_ be our "space brothers." (I have a whole lotta
trouble with that concept!) But, maybe the ETS don't want us to
blow ourselves up either. We are a lot like a kid with a little
bit of knowledge of chemistry, with a brink new chemistry set.
They do value life, whatever else they _don't_ value (our
privacy, etc.).

It is to our survival I speak, to human evolutionary
development. We must overcome that fear. Take the paper bag off
our heads. Experience the darkness. That is what we as
experiencers want others who to do. Face the darkness with us.
Maybe together we can find the light (which may be "truth").
First step is to take the bag off your head and _not_ negate
experiences. Bizarreness does not negate reality, not if you're
sane. I am sane.

Maybe that's another reason others don't want to look too hard
at the UFO phenomena. Maybe they're also afraid they will go
insane. Be reassured. You probably won't, if you're of sound
mind to begin with. Lots of children are forced to deal with
abduction on a "routine" basis. If their minds can deal with it,
why can't you? It'd be nice to have a few "debunkers" and
"skeptics" leading us all out into the light. As my son would
say, "That would kick ass!"


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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Kaeser

From: Steve Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:22:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:46:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Kaeser


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 10 Jul 2001 20:46:53 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

<snip>

 >Sheehan may address some of these questions in the couple
 >occasions when he talks on UFOs in the next couple weeks.

 >Lets wait and see what he says. Smith could answer all these
 >questions too, but I doubt she will. She has had the e-mail a
 >couple days now.

 >Grant

Grant-

Follow the process through if you don't get a reply. You can
forward your questions to your elected Representative in the
House and ask them to "officially" request clarification from
Ms. Smith. They will most likely forward your request directly
to CRS and that will generate an official response.

My understanding is that Marcia Smith really isn't interested in
becoming involved in the UFO genre, and she may not want to
respond for fear of becoming further entrenched.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

               Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:05:37 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:48:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Rudiak


 >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >If the UFO phenomenon represents physical visitors from some
 >other planet, then even improbable things like walking through
 >walls can be explained in nanotechnological terms (specifically
 >the concept of "utility fog," which is apparently encountered
 >again and again in the UFO literature).

Mac, I don't follow what you are saying here but would like to
know more about this theory. Could you elaborate and make it a
little clearer?  Thanks.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:35:13 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:49:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 10 Jul 2001 20:46:53 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:24:58 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >>This doesn't help any - _why_ would someone with Sheehan's
 >>non-scientist political-religious background be asked by Marcia
 >>Smith to give a briefing to JPL SETI personnel which takes one
 >>away from UFO's (SETI's antagonism to UFO's is long-standing and
 >>well-known)? That makes no sense. Nor does Sheehan asking for
 >>"classified sections" of Blue Book (aside from the grammatical
 >>absurdity, Blue Book was an activity, a project, not a thing or
 >>a set of files). Why should he care about classified or not
 >>classified in order to give a briefing to JPL SETI people?

 >>Don't say few questions have been asked of Sheehan - I've asked
 >>dozens now.

 >Every question that I think Danny would be able to answer has
 >been passed on. I really don't think Danny can answer the
 >question why he was picked to do a briefing at JPL. Maybe he
 >can. He has answered why he wanted the classified Blue Book
 >stuff.
<snip>

Grant,

I haven't seen Sheehan's explanation why he wanted "classified
sections" of BB in order to do a briefing at JPL. This of course
raises more questions: What documentary evidence is there that
Sheehan ever gave a 3-hour briefing on UFO's to JPL in 1977? How
would Marcia Smith of Congressional Research Service have the
authority or the connections to arrange for such a briefing to
be given by the Jesuit order's chief attorney to JPL? Why would
she do so? Why not have the Southern Baptist Convention -- to
which Carter then belonged -- give the UFO lectures to JPL and
review "classified sections" of Blue Book?

Could the CRS today, in 2001, arrange for, say, the President of
the Southern Baptist Convention to give a UFO lecture to, say,
MIT's radar scientists and engineers at its Lincoln Labs?
Wouldn't that be an exceedingly strange thing to do?

I notice you don't respond to the grammatical absurdity of
Sheehan referring to a "classified section" of an organization
of people as something one puts in a microfilm reader. Didn't he
understand what Project Blue Book was if he himself called it a
"Project"? I mean, did he think Blue Book was a "book" or
something??

And where are Sheehan's copies of the two alleged 1977 UFO
reports that Marcia Smith purportedly prepared in response to
President Carter's supposed request to the House?

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 >
   Jul > Jul 11

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:55:57 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:55:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:16:27 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle
 >>Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 10:17:19 -0700

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Your informants "who are very close to the center of this" have
 >>been giving you poor information. And I can't imagine who they
 >>might be since the main folks at the very center of the AA
 >>controversy are Ray, the cameraman, Philip Mantle, Mike Heseman,
 >>Neil Morris, the Roswell photo team, and me.

 >Ed, List, all -

 >You've named a couple of them. Do I understand, from your
 >note here that you have actually spoken to this mythical
 >cameraman (and yes, I used the word mythical on purpose)?

Kevin,

No, I have not spoken to the cameraman but I have communicated
with him through Ray while I was working with the MP. Ray was
interested in the MP's story because he thought the MP might be
verification of the cameraman's story. The cameraman asked the
MP several questions and because of the answers, we determined
that they were players in two separate ballgames. I found the
cameraman's questions helped my investigation and showed me that
he's still participating in some fashion.

 >>The information you now have on the AA, as shown by your writing
 >>on the subject, is a hodgepodge of misinformation and downright
 >>lies.

 >I certainly hope that you are not implying that I have lied
 >about any of this.

No you haven't lied about a thing but you have passed on lies or
at least misrepresentations. See "VIDEO" below.

 >Nope. I suggested that Barnett was in the office, which meant he
 >could have left the office and driven around the area in
 >Socorro, so, it would not really prove anything one way or the
 >other. I will supply those just as quickly as I can, but there
 >are some problems, with which I won't bore this list, that make
 >it a little difficult right now. Patience is its own reward.

I'm not in any great hurry. When you have the time is fine.

 >I suggested that you return to the dialog between Don Ecker and
 >Bob Shell for the precise areas in which the cameraman's
 >statement had been altered. It covers why there were alterations
 >in it, including the excuse that a British secretary had typed
 >it from the tape and had changed it... then it was changed back.

 >The cameraman's explanations as to how he ended up with the film
 >do not make any sense. It was in violation of the protocols and
 >there was no reason for those protocols to have been suspended.

There must have been some reason; secrecy perhaps. I agree with
Grant. Folks in power do exactly as they damn well please. Yes
the cameraman's story is outrageous on the face of it (but too
surreal for Ray to invent).

We have the video footage and we know it came from very old film
and we know who transferred it from raw footage to video. Ray
bought the footage from someone. We know he paid 100 grand for
it and that Volker is happy with his purchase. The cameraman may
be a complicated myth, (a Santilli pipedream) but you still have
to account for the footage. And if not the cameraman then who
did create the footage. Ray?

 >His tale of a trip from Washington to Wright Field to Roswell
 >and then a car trip over to Socorro makes no sense. Why not fly
 >right into either Albuquerque or Alamogordo and make a much
 >easier car trip down to Socorro?

Not at all. Maybe now but then the trip was about the same give
or take a half hour or so. Albuquerque was not much of a town in
1947.

I lived there, on and off from 1957 to 1965 and the roads were
not that great even then. I would say that the trip, time wise,
would be about the same because on the drive from Albuquerque to
Socorro, there are many little towns to pass through and much
agricultural traffic which slows everything. I drove the road on
mzany occasions before the freeway was constructed and know it's
not an easy drive. There are no significant towns between
Roswell and Socorro and the road is straight most of the way so
all in all I think it would have been much easier from Roswell.

 >Why didn't he use color film
 >for the autopsy? Especially the one in the brightly lighted
 >room? Where was the still photographer and the stationary motion
 >picture camera? Why weren't these protocols followed? They had
 >time to set it up because this was what, four or five weeks
 >after the crash?

I'm very familar with Longo's objections but I'm sorry I don't
buy into this. The cameraman shot the footage the way he was
instructed and developed it himself. That story hasn't changed.
Protocals were not followed! That's clear and no one ever said
they were. If they had been folowed we wouldn't have the
footage.

 >The cameraman's story doesn't hold water. He said that he didn't
 >want his name known because he didn't want anyone to know he had
 >sold the film for big money. Of course, since there was only one
 >cameraman, according to him, the government knows who he is
 >because there is only one. They can now arrest him on felony
 >charges, not the least of which is income tax evasion. No matter
 >how careful you are with his name, the government has records
 >and can learn who this was. Then, since he has not paid taxes on
 >the money, and because he was selling, in essence, stolen
 >property, and, since he was in violation of various laws that
 >protect classified material (even if that material is over 50
 >years old), they could find him and arrest him. These records
 >are in surprisingly good and complete shape. We've had trouble
 >prying the records out of the government's hands, but the
 >records have been there. So, there really is no way for this man
 >to have held the film, sold it, and not be known to the
 >government.

I agree, the cameraman's identity is probably known to the
controllers. They have each other in a death grip that will
continue until the cameraman dies. The government can't possibly
prosecute because that would lend credence to the AA and its
providence. But they've probably limited the cameraman's options
by threatening him with grim prospects if he ever reveals
himself , which according to Ray, he never intended in the first
place. He has stated that he is ashamed of his actions and
doesn't want to be know as a person who would break his oath of
secrecy for money.

<snip>

 >>Could you elaborate on this "better evidence". And while you're
 >>at it could you give a brief description of your latest take on
 >>the events at Roswell. With major witnesses falling by the
 >>wayside, it seems to me that the Roswell story has become a bit
 >>tattered and worn. The MP said the crash occurred on the 2nd and
 >>retrieval was the 3rd and 4th of July. And what about the
 >>Wilmots?

 >Yes, a document, that still needs some work that specifies the
 >July 4 date and no, I'm not referring to the nun's diary. And to
 >a chronology based on the sightings of William Woody and some
 >observations by MPs at the base... men whose names actually
 >appear in the yearbook.

 >The MP? The one whose picture is not in the Yearbook, but who
 >remembered some of those who are? Have you retrieved his service
 >record from the National Records Center in St. Louis? Have you
 >seen any documentation that proves this MP was in Roswell at the
 >right time and therefore could provide commentary on the events?

No I do not have anything that documents the MP's identity and I
realize that I can't prove his story but I do know how he
contacted me and I do have the information he provided. I trust
him and what he told me and how he told his story.

I deal with liars daily and think I know how to separate facts
from lies. The MP told me things about Roswell that were factual
but would not be readily known by someone who wasn't there. I
know his version varies from accepted opinions but the state of
the current Roswell witness list doesn't give one much
confidence in their testimonies. Are there any witnesses on
which most can agree? If not, I'll use my intuition and stick
with the MP when assessing the Roswell events.

 >The Wilmots saw a craft over Roswell on July 2 which, to my
 >thinking, is irrelevant. You must assume that what they saw was
 >an extraterrestrial craft and that it is the craft that crashed.
 >If their observation was of a natural phenomena, a
 >misidentification, or other terrestrially based object, then
 >what they saw provides nothing in the way of information. The
 >Wilmot sighting can be considered a red herring and of little
 >importance in understanding the Roswell case.

I just don't think we can pick and choose witnesses in this
fashion. The Wilmonts had been looking at the new Mexico night
sky for many moons.

In NM you can see everything in the night sky and experienced
sky watchers as the Wilmonts were would certainly have
recognized "natural phenomena". The Wilmonts, highly respected
citizens of Roswell, must have seen something very unusual if
they reported it.

The object they described was a classic UFO: " Oval in shape
like two inverted saucers". It was about 1500 feet in the air
and going directly toward Corona at 500-600MPH.. Some red
herring!

 >>>>The May crash may be the one that Barney observed.
 >>>>There is no evidence that it is, or that such a crash took
 >>>>place.

 >>Yes there is but you won't take a close look. Send me your
 >>mailing address and I'll send you the CDs, free, in return for
 >>the Barney's whereabouts on the 31st of June.

 >I have taken close looks. I have provided information that you
 >reject out of hand. You have yet to explain how the terrestrial
 >word "video" appears on the alien I-beam. You say that it
 >doesn't, yet almost anyone who has seen the debris footage has
 >seen this word. Isn't it an extraordinary coincidence that
 >"video" appears on the I-beam of the alien wreckage that is,
 >itself on video.

This one example of what I consider close to a lie that you
perpetuate, and you could easily clear up this misperception by
ordering the CDs and seeing for yourself whether "VIDEO" appears
anywhere in the debris footage. There are some symbols/letters
that resemble the word video but they appear in a series of
letters and even then don't spell "video" or anything close.

 >Dare I point out that he was nowhere on the 31st of June?

I meant May 31st.

 >As soon as I have the information, I will forward it to you, as
 >I have done in the past (no, not this specific information, but
 >other information).

Thanks. Yes the information you sent was most helpful so let me
send you something in return which I think you will thank me for
later. You need to take a look at the AA CDs. You've changed
your mind on many things about Roswell. I know it won't be a
problem for me or anyone on the list if you decide to change
your mind about the AA and FW photos as well.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 12

              Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:28:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Tonnies


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:05:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>If the UFO phenomenon represents physical visitors from some
 >>other planet, then even improbable things like walking through
 >>walls can be explained in nanotechnological terms (specifically
 >>the concept of "utility fog," which is apparently encountered
 >>again and again in the UFO literature).

 >Mac, I don't follow what you are saying here but would like to
 >know more about this theory. Could you elaborate and make it a
 >little clearer? Thanks.

Certainly. "Utility fog" is a nanotech application that would
appear as a glowing mist (Moravec, "Robot: Mere Machine to
Transcendent Mind"). Comprised of billions of "hived"
nanomachines, the "fog" could be used to dismantle physical
objects on the atomic level on demand, form instruments "out of
thin air" and even produce a sort of levitation. Kind of a
nanotech Swiss Army knife.

If I was an alien and wanted to abduct some people from a
suburban house without letting the neighbors in on it, I'd use a
psychoactive utiluty fog to "turn off" potential witnesses,
dematerialize (and rematerialize) any physical barrier I wanted
to pass through, and levitate human subjects to my vehicle
hovering nearby.

I've read an account of abduction describing the "levitation
beam" as "grainy," which makes sense if it's composed of
billions of individual microscopic machines functioning in
unison rather than radiation.

The question to me is: if the "aliens" have reached this level
of technology (and it's plausible they have, given that we're
well on our way), why do the surgical procedures seem so
low-tech in comparison?

And why are "implants" supposedly macroscopic? A nanotech
implant, hooked up to the right nerves, could monitor just about
any bodily or neurological function you wanted monitored and it
wouldn't need to be bigger than a germ. In fact, we could _all_
be seething with microscopic alien technology and never know it.


=====
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 >
   Jul > Jul 12

                    Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.]

From: David RudiakDRudiak@aol.com
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:15:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:36:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.]


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 06:05:06 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:06:00 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Sparks

Sorry for the long reply, put there are a lot of points to
respond to. I've had to divide this into two parts.

Part 1:

 >I agree with you [Bob Young] that Kecksburg seems to be a
 >meteor fireball and that no credible evidence has been
 >presented otherwise. Lengthy postings have been made previously
 >and there has been no response by proponents, no credible
 >evidence refuting the meteor >explanation.

Please see my response yesterday on Kecksberg which questions
the reliability of the article giving the "meteor" trajectory
(has many obvious flaws in methodology), and outlines clear
evidence of something continuing on a southeasterly trajectory
past Detroit/Windsor all the way into Pennsylvania. This
includes falling debris, some of it recovered, and brush fires
started in Elyria, Ohio, about 80 miles southeast of
Detroit/Windsor, a widely reported sighting of the fireball
_east_ of Columbus, Ohio by a weather observer, possibly as much
as 7 to 10 minutes elapsed time between the fireball sighting in
Indiana to when it was spotted in Pennsylvania and New York,
press-reported shock waves over western Pennsylvania (requires
object to continue to Pennsylvania), multiple sightings of the
fireball reported to the Penn. State Police, a reported 7
witnesses near Kecksberg seeing the fireball or seeing it drop
into the woods or feeling the "thud" of it landing plus seeming
to start a fire (caused the woods near Kecksberg to be
searched), and the news reports of military involvement,
including the Army sealing off the area.

 >Let's look at the pros and cons of the Walker story:

 >I personally do not believe the various stories told by
 >Sarbacher and Walker. There are credibility problems with
 >Sarbacher in 1950 swallowing the Scully book whole (see quote
 >below)

This is completely ridiculous (see below).

 >and not raising a single question about the
 >pseudoscientific nonsense in it which to me damages his
 >credibility as a critical thinker and a scientist.

This was a briefing provided by Sarbacher on whether the saucers
were real, not a critical analysis of the Scully book. The
Scully book (which had just come out a few days before and which
Sarbacher may not have even read), was simply a stimulus that
got Wilbert Smith asking for the briefing to begin with (Smith
had just read the book). You have to view Sarbacher's mention of
Scully's book in that context.

 >Several
 >decades did not help him in that respect. Walker has credibility
 >problems too with his wild story of 4 aliens "integrating into
 >American life"

Here we go again! Obviously Walker was just pulling Steinman's
leg at that point. Walker didn't expect anybody to take such a
letter seriously, which was the whole point - damage control -
after Walker realized he had perhaps said too much in his
initial phone conversation. Walker was also largely evasive with
everybody else after that, though Armen Victorian (AKA Henry
Azadehdel) got him to admit to quite a bit more, including going
out to the Kecksberg crash site.

 >plus other things mentioned in a Hesemann book which I don't have.

Since you don't have it and obviously don't know what's in it,
so why do you cite it as a reference? This is nothing but
hearsay from you.

 >Neither one claimed to have been first-hand witnesses of alleged
 >alien artifacts or bodies

Not necessarily. If you believe Whitley Strieber, he spoke to
Sarbacher shortly before his death in 1986 (see his book
"Breakthrough"). According to Strieber, 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. ...What I can be certain about is that it was not
produced by an technology that we were aware of in 1947, or
now."

What I find interesting about this quote is the mention of not
having the microscopes until the '60s to visualize the material
and describing it as a "fabric". The alluded to microscopes
sound like scanning electron microscopes, which didn't emerge
until the 1960s. I only know of 2 witnesses who described
Roswell material as resembling "fabric", one of them being Jesse
Marcel, who said he ruled out balloon material because much of
it was porous (he could blow through it). These are subtle
details, and I'm not sure Strieber could have invented them.

You should also re-read Sarbacher's 1983 letter to Steinman in
which he states, "I did receive some official reports when I was
in my office at the Pentagon but all of these were left there as
at the time we were never supposed to take them out of the
office.

So even though Sarbacher denied attending any of the meetings
concerning crashed saucers, he wrote he had some direct
knowledge in the form of "official reports."

 >- Sarbacher's usual story is that he
 >didn't make it to the meeting(s) at Wright-Pat in 1950 where it
 >was to be discussed but that afterwards other participant(s)
 >told him about it, which is hearsay (I have heard that Sarbacher
 >may have once admitted firsthand handling but I don't know all
 >the details nor why he denied it in all other interviews).

This isn't necessarily all that unusual. Often times witnesses
about all sorts of things want to talk and tell all, but realize
they shouldn't. Instead they give out little bits of
information, without revealing the full extent of their
knowledge. They may also deny direct involvement. It's sort of
like the person going to their priest or psychiatrist and
wanting to talk about a "friend's" problems. Obviously they are
talking about themselves, but maintain a level of deniability by
distancing themselves from it. Eventually, however, they may end
up telling all.

 >Walker was Sarbacher's source for what happened at the meetings
 >according to Sarbacher (as told to Steinman in 1984),

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Sarbacher ever named
Walker as his source. Instead he told _Stanton Friedman_ in 1983
that he did not attend the meeting at Wright Field concerning
the recovered saucers, but someone attended all the meetings,
whose name he couldn't remember. However, he provided a number
of details about the man, so that Steinman was able to deduce
that it was Walker after a little investigation.

Steinman then called Sarbacher in 1984, and Sarbacher then
verified that it was Walker that attended the meetings. But,
again to my knowledge, Sarbacher never said Walker was his
source of information.

Also it bears repeating that Sarbacher said he did receive some
official reports on the subject.

 >so that
 >would eliminate Sarbacher as an independent witness.

Why? You have provided no evidence that Walker was Sarbacher's
source of information. You seem a little shaky on a lot of the
details.

 >Nevertheless Sarbacher provides one countervailing benefit in
 >that certain elements of the UFO information presumably from
 >Walker were told to Wilbert Smith on Sept 15, 1950, and recorded
 >in writing at the time - so we can't blame the passage of time
 >for distortion of _all_ of the details. It's important to
 >analyze in detail this earliest contemporaneous evidence.

 >Sarbacher said to Smith as recorded in the 1950 memo that the
 >"facts" in Scully's book "are substantially correct." Which
 >facts? Why only "substantially" instead of "fully" or
 >"completely" or "nearly all" or some such? That's very ambiguous

Exactly, it's very ambiguous, so I can't understand why you make
such a Federal case out of nothing.

 >but the subsequent details in the next followup questions
 >clarify what was meant as to which "facts" were "substantially
 >correct" and how much was "substantial." Sarbacher's answers to
 >Smith's questions were that saucers "exist," that as for for
 >whether saucers operate on "magnetic principles" (as Scully
 >ludicrously alleged) we can't "duplicate their performance" -
 >this could actually be construed a denial of the essence of
 >Scully's crashed-saucer claims which were so heavily connected
 >with "magnetics" and that it was other "facts" about UFO
 >reality, high performance, ET origin, etc., that were
 >"substantially" correct.

Right, so what exactly is the problem here? The central theme of
the Scully book was of crashed saucers and alien bodies in New
Mexico. Even if Scully got duped and got all the specifics
wrong, Sarbacher could have been saying the basic thesis of the
book was essentially correct.

 >If Sarbacher was confirming that the US
 >Government or some official agency or panel thought UFO's were
 >ET, that might be sufficiently "substantial" for anyone, without
 >also requiring a saucer crash.

If there was any doubt about what Sarbacher was referring to,
again I suggest you read his letter to Steinman, in which he
makes it quite clear he was talking about flying saucer crashes.
E.g., he wrote about the official reports he said he read at the
Pentagon, "About the only think I remember at this time is that
certain materials reported to have come from flying saucer
crashes were extremely light and very tough. I am sure our
laboratories analyzed them very carefully."

 >As for whether they come from
 >another planet "All we know is, that we didn't make them, and
 >it's pretty certain they didn't originate on earth." Again only
 >to be "pretty certain" instead of "absolutely" certain, and to
 >say "All we know is... we didn't make them," sounds like
 >inference based on accumulated case histories, not the
 >_absolute_ certainty one would expect from a crashed saucer
 >recovery with or without alien bodies.

This strikes me as nothing but semantic hair splitting. Viewed
in the context of the Scully book about crashed saucers and
Sarbacher's letter and statements 30+ years later, Sarbacher was
definitely talking about crashed saucers and the government
having alien artifacts in their possession.

 >All of these responses could easily come from official documents
 >and agency evaluations similar to the Twining letter of Sept 23,
 >1947, that flying discs are "real" and capable of extreme
 >performance beyond current capabilities, etc., and Project SIGN
 >conclusions that they therefore may be "inter-planetary
 >spaceships" (SIGN Interim Report, Nov 30, 1948, etc.).

That clearly was not what Sarbacher was saying. See above.

 >Further,
 >Sarbacher claimed that saucers were "the most highly classified
 >subject in the U.S. government at the present time" but said "I
 >can't tell you" the reason why. Well, if Sarbacher had actually
 >just confirmed the recovery of a crashed saucer a few seconds
 >earlier wouldn't that be an obvious reason he _could_ "tell"
 >Smith?

You are totally misinterpreting this. Sarbacher was obviously
saying he didn't know why the subject was so highly classified -
that's all. He also said this in his 1983 letter to Steinman: "I
still do not know why the high order of classification has been
given and why the denial of the existence of these devices."

 >This may be another indication that Sarbacher hadn't
 >confirmed anything about a crash recovery, only that the
 >government thought saucers were real and extraterrestrial, that
 >the exact reasoning for which was complex and highly classified
 >and not a simple "crashed-saucer recovery."

Why don't you just read what the man said, instead of devising
convoluted theories to try to explain away what he did say?

 >It was not a passing
 >remark that perhaps was inadvertently overstated because Smith
 >and Sarbacher continued to discuss ways for Smith to get access
 >to the classified saucer data and Sarbacher helpfully suggested
 >a way to do it but continued to insist "I can't give you any
 >more at the present time."

Which either means that Sarbacher didn't know any more, or, more
likely, he couldn't tell Smith any more because Smith didn't
have the proper clearance.

Smith, BTW, in future years did publicly say he had received
alien artifacts for examination from an organization he couldn't
name.

 >Thus this contemporaneous 1950 info does not _directly_ confirm
 >the recovery of a crashed saucer and alien bodies - the
 >strongest statement is one claiming that the crackpot Scully
 >book's "facts" were "substantially correct," and that doesn't
 >inspire any confidence unless Scully's crashed-saucer claims
 >were actually being denied and it was other "facts" being
 >confirmed (see above and more below). It's still hearsay if the
 >alleged info actually came from Walker

This thing about Walker being his source seems to have been
invented by you.

Sarbacher wrote that he received "official reports" on the
subject. There's no denying that. In other words, Sarbacher was
saying that he wasn't just conveying hearsay from others.

 >and it of course does not
 >confirm that Walker was a firsthand witness of anything.

Walker was Executive Secretary at the time of the Research and
Development Board, meaning he probably did attend most of the
meetings or was aware of the contents. If the meetings of the
RDB in question were about crashed saucers and alien bodies, as
Sarbacher said they were, then that would give Walker first-hand
knowledge. Sarbacher said Walker attended all of those meetings.

 >The fact that electrical engineer Sarbacher didn't mention that
 >Scully's book was filled with pseudoscientific hogwash about
 >electromagnetism means that (a) it calls into question his
 >competence as an electrical engineer, since anyone knowledgeable
 >about electromagnetics would throw up reading the utter drivel
 >in Scully's book, or (b) that he rejected as non-factual the
 >alleged crashed-saucer "magnetic" research, thus casting doubt
 >on the alleged crash recovery or (c) it suggests he didn't
 >actually know what was in Scully's book, so that his reference
 >to its "facts" being "substantially correct" cannot be
 >considered confirmation of a crashed saucer recovery.

How about something close to (c) plus the fact that Sarbacher
wasn't doing a book review? Smith was asking him to verify
Scully's general thesis of recovery of crashed saucers and alien
bodies, which Sarbacher could have gotten by reading the book
jacket cover.

If it wasn't clear from Smith's notes of the 1950 briefing,
Sarbacher's statements 30+ years later make it quite clear he
was talking about actual crashed saucers and the recovery of
alien artifacts.

 >So there are at least 5 lines of evidence in Smith's
 >near-verbatim transcript of his conversation with Sarbacher on
 >Spt 15, 1950, and reflected in his declassified Top Secret
 >Canadian govt memo of Nov 21, 1950 (so there cannot be any doubt
 >about the genuineness and contemporaneity of these 1950
 >documents) that point away from a crashed saucer recovery and
 >merely point towards Sarbacher's belief that there was a highly
 >classified official conclusion by some US agency that UFO's were
 >extraterrestrial: (1) Sarbacher hedges in only "substantially"
 >confirming something in Scully's book rather than "fully" or
 >"nearly all," etc. (2) Sarbacher' s non-confirmation of Scully's
 >crashed-saucer "magnetic principles." (3) Sarbacher only "pretty
 >certain" saucers were ET instead of "absolutely certain" as one
 >would expect from a crash recovery. (4) Sarbacher "can't tell"
 >the reason for the high classification of saucers which would be
 >simple to tell _if_ he had already just said a crash had been
 >recovered. (5) Sarbacher's failure to pounce on the obvious
 >pseudoscience about electromagnetism, and science generally, in
 >the recounting of alleged government scientific analyses of
 >saucer wrecks throughout Scully's book.

This argument strikes me as substantial as a house of cards. As
far as I'm concerned, much of it is nonsensical, made up of
specious reasoning and obvious misinterpretation of Sarbacher's
words. E.g., Sarbacher WASN'T saying he couldn't tell Smith the
reason for high classification. He was saying he didn't know the
reason for the high classification.

 >The 1950 date for both Walker and Sarbacher is troubling because
 >it is when the US Government was deluged with crashed saucer
 >stories from Scully, or inspired by Scully, Silas Newton and
 >other wild storytellers and con men, so it makes sense that
 >government conferences might take place where some participants
 >with poor critical thinking skills might misconstrue discussion
 >of variants of the Scully stories or examination of poorly
 >worded documents as confirmation of the stories.

More utterly convoluted reasoning that makes no sense.

 >I find it hard
 >to believe either Sarbacher or Walker were "caught off guard" by
 >someone asking them questions about crashed saucers given the
 >actual reactions reported (Walker's comments in Steinman's first
 >call on Aug 30, 1987, did not _directly_ even confirm that he
 >had examined crashed saucers or alien bodies, but referred
 >vaguely to "that subject matter,"

"That subject matter" being in the sentence "Yes, I attended
meetings concerning that subject matter," after Steinman said he
introduced the conversation saying it was "in reference to the
meetings that you attended at Wright-Patterson � in/around
1949-1950 concerning the military recovery of flying saucers and
bodies of occupants.

If Steinman accurately reported at least the substance of his
statement and Walker's reply, there is absolutely nothing
"vague" about it.

  and the call is based on
 >Steinman's memory of it, not a tape, so we're forced to rely on
 >the accuracy of Steinman, which I'm not comfortable with).

Yes, apparently there was no tape, but Steinman could obviously
still take notes and reconstruct the essence of the conversation
from that. Please also note that Steinman immediately wrote a
follow-up letter listing all the basic topics of discussion
which he said occurred.

Steinman wrote the next day: "This is in response to our
telephone conversation of Aug. 30, 1987, and in reference to my
letter to you dated May 31, 1984, concerning the military
recovery of flying saucers and the scientific analysis of the
bodies of the occupants there from. During the telephone
conversation you mentioned knowing of the group known as
"MJ-Twelve" and their project known as "Operation Majestic-12",
who were responsbile for analysis of both the saucers and the
occupants taken from them. �Please look for those notes
concerning those Wright-Patterson AFB meeting concerning the
above mentioned subject matter."

This was followed by Walker's screwy letter 3 weeks later about
the 4 aliens integrated into American society. This letter still
strikes me as an obvious attempt at damage control after Walker
realized that he had said too much in his phone conversation of
August 30.

 >No
 >one reports that they stuttered, hemmed and hawed, got
 >flustered, or gave any obvious sign of being undone by the
 >sudden questions. It almost seems as if they had been casually
 >waiting for the question for decades.

Huh? Is this supposed to prove something?

 >That said, however, I must admit that I am deeply troubled by
 >the fact that two top rank scientists or engineers of the
 >caliber of Walker and Sarbacher should converge on such similar
 >stories or hints about alleged recovery of extraterrestrial
 >vehicles and bodies - albeit though it appears Walker was
 >Sarbacher's source

As far as I know, Walker was not Sarbacher's "source." The only
clear connection between the two was their 1950 affiliation with
the RDB and Sarbacher fingering Walker as attending all the
meetings on crashed saucers.

 >and they were both initially prompted with
 >similar preconceived questions by the same UFOlogist - and that
 >after decades they should agree in pinpointing their DoD
 >Research & Development Board (RDB) experience in or around 1950
 >as the inception of it. Doesn't that trouble you, Bob? It
 >should.

Finally we get to some meeting of the minds. Not only was there
the 1950 Sarbacher/Smith briefing, there was also other Smith
documents from late 1950 and 1951 linking Vannevar Bush and the
RDB to the saucer investigations. None of this has anything to
do with "prompting" by Steinman 30+ years later.

 >Walker was President of Penn State Univ from 1956 to 1970, he
 >was a member of the National Academy of Engineering, and he
 >worked with the Institute for Defense Analysis from 1958 on,
 >becoming IDA board chairman in 1981. Sure, these aren't MJ-12
 >but it means he wasn't your usual nitwit, and he had plausible
 >government connections with the RDB and elsewhere. That should
 >bother you as much as it does me, granted though these later
 >prestigious positions were not the case in 1950 when the alleged
 >saucer crash and bodies were supposed to have been studied. With
 >such an outstanding background in military defense and
 >engineering it is hard to _entirely_ dismiss out of hand the
 >hints Walker gave in various interviews and letters in the 80's
 >as misconceptions, memory lapses, or gameplaying - as much as I
 >would like to dismiss it out of hand. There has to be some
 >explanation for all this. At the very least an official
 >deception op or disinformation program using Walker.

 >For some of Walker's background see the Penn State official website:
 >http://www.psu.edu/ur/about/history.html

 >Surely there must be records of meetings of the RDB's Guided
 >Missiles Committee at Wright-Patterson AFB in 1950, a committee
 >on which Sarbacher served. I doubt the whole RDB ever had such a
 >meeting there as it was too large and its admin staff was based
 >in Washington, but the GM Committee did occasionally and I think
 >I've seen passing references to it in declassified docs. Whether
 >the RDB Exec Secy Walker ever traveled out there for a GM
 >Committee meeting or RDB business is another issue and ought to
 >be discoverable in RDB records.

OK. As I mentioned in another post, Walker was also an
"underwater missile" expert, namely an expert on torpedo
guidance systems and sonar, some of his WWII defense work and
immediate postwar research. It doesn't seem too far-fetched that
he would have attended meetings of the Guided Missiles
Committee.

 >Whether Vannevar Bush had a role in directing all this as
 >claimed in the info Wilbert Smith got through defence liaison
 >attache Lt Col Bremner of the Canadian Embassy in 1950 is
 >another thorny issue since Bush had no longer headed the RDB
 >since 1948,

This doesn't mean he didn't remain involved with the RDB after
1948. In fact, I again refer you to the Wilbert Smith
correspondence of later 1950, early 1951 where it is repeatedly
stated that a Donald Keyhoe article for True Magazine on Smith's
magnetic propulsion theories of the saucers needed to be cleared
through both Bush and the RDB. This was immediately after
Smith's November, 1950 memo to the Canadian Dept. of Transport
where Smith wrote, "Their modus operandi is unknown but
concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by
Doctor Vannevar Bush."

 >he had very poor relations with President Truman,
 >and he had a long track record of interference with and
 >obstruction of advanced developments such ICBM's, space travel
 >and even the Manhattan "Project" during the war.

And Robert Oppenheimer opposed the development of the H-bomb for
political, moral, and scientific reasons. The scientific
reasons, BTW, were very sound at the time.

Without considering _why_ people like Oppenheimer or Bush might
oppose something, you haven't really said anything.  All you are
doing is looking at history with 20/20 hindsight.

E.g., consider _why_ Bush might have good reason to oppose the
Manhatten Project. He wasn't alone. To start with, it was an
enormous, expensive gamble. It would draw valuable scientific
and financial resources away from a multitude of other weapons
project that Bush was overseeing at the time as Director of
OSRD. The A-bomb project could have been a collosal flop. A lot
of scientists, including Oppenheimer and other people on the
Manhatten Project, were very worried about this. Engineering the
bomb was enormously difficult, and success was by no means
guaranteed.

Eventually the Manhatten Project was transferred to the Army
Corp of Engineers because the OSRD lacked the resources
necessary to make it happen. Making the A-bomb was probably two
orders of magnitude larger in cost and manpower than any other
wartime weapons project.

 >All this makes
 >it highly unlikely that Truman would have appointed Bush to any
 >sensitive national security positions requiring utmost trust,
 >such as the crashed saucer investigation mentioned by Wilbert
 >Smith and claimed in MJ-12 documents.

Whether you think it likely or not, Smith _does_ specifically
name Bush as heading up the effort immediately after the
briefing by Sarbacher. In further correspondence, it is said
that Keyhoe's article must first be cleared through Bush and the
RDB.

You remind me of someone giving half a dozen reasons of why
bumblebees can't fly. They might even be logical reasons. But
the problem is bumblebees CAN fly. So all the reasons in the
world why they shouldn't fly are superfluous.

 >Bush's Dec 1945 testimony
 >in Congress knocking the possibility of ICBM's resulted in the
 >shutdown of rocket programs including the Atlas ICBM, setting
 >the U.S. so many years behind that the Soviets beat us into
 >space with Sputnik using its military ICBM, the R-7. In 1960

 >Bush was publicly opposing manned space travel in the NY Times.

Again, did you ever consider _why_ Bush might be opposed to
manned space travel? Even setting aside the whole issue of Bush
being involved with crashed saucers and retro-engineering their
"modus operandi", many scientists back then opposed manned space
travel as wasteful of scientific resources, just as many
consider today's International Space Station to be a boondoggle
and wasteful of money that could better be spent elsewhere.
Unmanned probes are a far more cost-effective way to explore
space. You could send 100 probes to Mars for the cost of one
ISS.

Let's face it, the whole impetus for manned space travel in the
1960's was not based on sound scientific reasons, but was an
emotional reaction, the Cold War competition with the Soviets
and the propaganda and prestige value of being "first." Also, as
put so succinctly in "The Right Stuff" by the Mercury
astronauts, "No Buck Rogers, no bucks." The public could
identify with the human drama of manned flight, but there wasn't
much interest in dry, scientific probes.

(continued in part 2)

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 >
   Jul > Jul 12

                    Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 2.]

From: David RudiakDRudiak@aol.com
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:20:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:39:53 -0400
Subject: Re:  Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 2.]

Part 2:

 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 06:05:06 EDT
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Sparks


 >More testimony as to Bush's low status with Truman comes from
 >Bush himself in interviews with Truman's military R&D and
 >science consultant William T. Golden in 1950, as well as
 >comments from other top scientists (Golden interviewed Walker
 >among many, but the report is not online). According to Nobel
 >Prize winning physicist Isidor I. Rabi, Bush was not even "a
 >leading scientist."

 >On Golden's idea for appointing the first
 >Scientific Advisor to the President, for which Golden had been
 >shopping around for candidates, Golden rendered Rabi's comments
 >on Nov 16, 1950:

 >"Neither would Bush be the man. He has enemies among scientists
 >as well as among the military. He has respect for his competence
 >in many ways but has questions as to his administrative ability,
 >and points out that he is not a leading scientist as such."

I don't think anybody has ever argued that Bush was a "leading
scientist." That's not the point. His main claim to fame was as
a scientific administrator, especially his stint as Director of
OSRD (Office of Scientific Research and Development) during
WWII, which oversaw some 200 military weapons projects during
the war. If Bush was a lousy administrator, he nevertheless
seems to have gotten the job done as Director of OSRD.

Should we also mention that he was Director of the National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) from 1939 to 1941 and
President of the Carnegie Institute in Washington starting in
1939? The formation of OSRD was the direct result of Bush
pushing for an all-out mobilization of the academic and
scientific communities for national defense following the
outbreak of war in 1939. Early in 1940, at Bush's suggestion,
the secretary of NACA began preparing a draft of the proposed
National Defense Research Committee to be presented to Congress.
But when Germany invade France, Bush went directly to Pres.
Roosevelt. A month later, the NDRC was functioning with Bush as
Chairman before it had even been made official. The NDRC
eventually lead to the formation of OSRD a year later, in June,
1941.

It is also not surprising that Bush would have some enemies
among scientists and in the military. Who wouldn't after this
period of time? Bush had supervised thousands, particularly in
his stint as director of OSRD. Getting the scientists and
military people to work together was a continual problem, as
historians of the OSRD have often pointed out. Bush would have
to butt some heads together and make decisions that would
naturally cause resentment. That always happens with
administrators or anybody else in charge. It certainly happened
with Oppenheimer on the Manhatten Project.

Bush also made some political enemies in his push for a post-war
version of OSRD. See below.

 >Bush himself frankly told Golden of his "outsider" position in
 >government consulting and of his non-relations with Truman going
 >back to at least 1947 if not 1945, as Golden registered it on
 >Oct 24, 1950, which was compared with his "very close working
 >relationship" with Roosevelt. Considering that Bush knew that
 >Golden reported directly to Truman it is likely that the
 >situation was actually worse than he described (my comments and
 >corrections in brackets []):

 >"Dr. Bush is now on the outside so far as Government scientific
 >matters are concerned, a position of which he is very conscious
 >and to which he referred time and time again. Thought [though]
 >President Truman is very cordial to him, he does not call upon
 >him for advice, though Dr. Bush has pointed this out to him on
 >several occasions."

 From 1945 to 1947, Bush had pushed Congress to form a permanent,
well-funded, peacetime version of OSRD for basic scientific
research. Among Bush's proposals was to have the body
administered by a panel of top scientists and civilian
administrators, who in turn appointed an executive director.
Bush favored basic research and private patent rights.

Truman, on the other hand, favored a single administrator
appointed and removed by the President (therefore, directly
accountable to the President), heavy emphasis on applied
research, and a patent clause favoring Government monopoly.

On May 20, 1947, a version of a bill incorporating most of the
features advocated by Bush, including the controversial
administration by an autonomous scientific panel, finally passed
the Senate, and on July 16, 1947, it passed the House (a week
after Roswell). Truman vetoed the bill on August 6 on the
grounds that the administrative officers were not properly
responsible to either the President or Congress.

This was a philosophical/political power struggle over who would
ultimately be in charge of such an organization and what
direction it would take. MJ-12, on the other hand, was
supposedly created by Executive Order of Truman, and supposedly
directly accountable to him or other Presidents, at least in the
beginning. It would have been an organization on Truman's terms,
not Bush's.

 >[If Truman "does not call upon him for advice" how could Truman
 >have called upon Bush for advice on sensitive crashed saucer
 >investigations ala Wilbert Smith and MJ-12?]

Bumblebees can fly. And whether you like or not, the Smith
documents DO name Bush as heading up a group within RDB in
1950/51 studying the modus operandi of the saucers. Whether Bush
was in political favor with Truman _publicly_ or wholeheartedly
endorsed by everybody in the scientific and military communities
as a public science advisor is besides the point.

Truman could still have entrusted Bush as an executive
administrator of an organization like "MJ-12" or the special
saucer group within the RDB (as indicated by the Wilbert Smith
documents) because of his past administration of OSRD, NACA, the
Carnegie Institute, Joint Research and Development Board, etc,
and RDB. Being something like director of MJ-12 would be
primarily an administrative job of coordinating research
involving multiple government agencies, just like his past
positions in which he had been very successful.

Brad, I could give you half a dozen good reasons why Kennedy
should never have offered the Vice Presidency to Johnson, and
half a dozen other good reasons why Johnson should have declined
the offer. We could start with the men being political rivals
and not liking or trusting one another. But in the end, simple
reasons prevailed. Kennedy needed to win Texas, and Johnson
thought it was his only shot at ever being President.

It could have been exactly the same with Truman and Bush. Maybe
Truman needed somebody experienced to direct research in an
MJ-12 type organization, and maybe Bush was the most obvious
candidate available at the moment. It could be as mundane as
that. Politics is opportunistic and makes for strange
bedfellows.

 >"He feels that this is not because of any personal dislike but
 >rather because President Truman just doesn't operate in this
 >way - the contrast between President Truman and President
 >Roosevelt is very strong in this respect. It is evident that
 >Dr. Bush, who had a very close working relationship with
 >President Roosevelt, does not approve of the present state of
 >affairs."

 >[Vannevar Bush was clearly very unhappy with the way Truman was
 >treating him and he next gives a specific example of how Truman
 >snubbed him on a top-level scientific advisory project back in
 >1947, which typified his non-relations with Truman, and which
 >make it difficult to believe that Truman would have appointed
 >Bush in 1947 to a delicate national security matter involving
 >extraterrestrials:]

Please review the history of _why_ Truman "snubbed" him,
outlined above. It was primarily because Bush had been
accustomed to being a type of science czar under Roosevelt with
a relatively free hand to do what he liked. The national science
panel that Bush wanted to establish postwar would have been
relatively autonomous, whereas Truman wanted the President and
Congress to be in charge of the direction of national scientific
research.

This wasn't a matter of Truman not necessarily trusting Bush,
but having fundamental differences of opinion with him over who
was to be in charge. "MJ-12" would have had the President in
charge. If Bush could live with that, Truman probably wouldn't
have had any problems with Bush.

 >"He mentioned,. for example, that when President Truman set up
 >the President's Scientific Research Board - the so called
 >Steelman Board - which prepared the Steelman report in 1947,
 >he did not consult Dr. Bush either before naming the Board or in
 >any in [of] its deliberations. Dr. Bush was on the Board along with
 >a considerable number of other big names but he stated that he
 >had played no part whatsoever in the Board's work, that in fact
 >he did not see the report until it was in print. He certainly did
 >not approve of the President's turning to John Steelman who, he
 >said, knew nothing whatever of to [the] subject matter, to prepare
 >this report, when he, Dr. Bush and other qualified individuals were
 >available.

 >[Apparently Bush was lying about Steelman preparing the report
 >for Truman, instead of the actual scientists on the board, as we
 >find out next:]

 >"In this connection, Mr. Kidd's comment to me the other day
 >(Kidd worked on the staff that prepared the report) that John
 >Steelman had played virtually no part whatever in the
 >preparation of the report is interesting. Kidd said that he
 >thought that Steelman had probably read the report after it
 >was completed, but that was about all."

 >Interestingly, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Cal Tech physicists
 >Robert Bacher and Charles Lauritsen were critical of Bush's and
 >Berkner's handling of RDB - both being alleged MJ-12 members -
 >in Golden's interviews on Dec 21, 1950:

 >"It was stated that Dr. Lloyd Berkner was very much
 >responsible for the initial organization of RDB but it was
 >said, sort of despite this, he has everyone's confidence. It
 >seemed that their feeling was that the initial blame for
 >faulty practical conception and bad organization lies with
 >Berkner and that Bush just should have known better.... They
 >fear literally the collapse of the RDB."

And this has what to do with the Smith documents stating that
Bush was heading up a group within the RDB investigating the
modus operandi of the saucers? Bumblebees still fly, no matter
how many seemingly logical reasons you can come up with to
suggest that they can't.

 >Getting back to Walker, I am not entirely comfortable with
 >simply rejecting the inferences from Walker's conversations and
 >interviews in the 80's despite questionable responses such as
 >the bizarre claim that 4 aliens that were "integrated into
 >American society." There is also a question as to whether we
 >would be justified in tracking back Sarbacher's 1980's
 >crashed-saucer responses to details in his 1950 interview with
 >Smith and any info he obtained from Walker at that time.

Again you are claiming that Sarbacher's sole source of
information was Walker, when I know of nothing that says
Sarbacher received any information from Walker.

 >Sarbacher's Nov 29, 1983, letter to Steinman implies that
 >discussion of "extremely light and very tough" saucer materials
 >(which sounds like Scully)

It sounds like multiple descriptions of the Roswell materials.
Why couldn't Sarbarcher's information be based on real alien
artifacts, just like Smith would later say he received alien
artifacts for study?

 >and insect-like alien bodies (which
 >sounds like the speculation in Cdr. McLaughlin's TRUE article of
 >March 1950 that insect-like bodies would be needed to withstand
 >high-g accelerations of saucers, and later repeated in Gerald
 >Heard's book) was a report or "impression" he got from "talking
 >with some of the people in the office" at the Pentagon in 1950.
 >Did any of this come from Walker and even if it did how much of
 >it was from discussion of press speculation in Scully and TRUE
 >magazine in 1950? How much might have come from Sarbacher
 >hearing a pro-ETH Estimate-of-the-Situation-type discussion from
 >Walker or others in 1950 and then in later years it all got
 >confused with discussions of Scully's book and TRUE magazine at
 >the same time in 1950? How much did RDB's approval of Project
 >Twinkle for the secret investigation and tracking of UFO's
 >influence RDB discussions of the reality of UFO's in 1950 given
 >the extremely tense security situation over troubling UFO
 >sightings near sensitive nuclear installations in the Southwest
 >and the successful photo-triangulation of the high-altitude
 >UFO's on April 27, 1950? If as Sarbacher told Steinman in 1984
 >he got his info from Walker

No, Brad, Sarbacher did _not_ tell Steinman that he got his
information from Walker.

 >who attended the classified saucer
 >meetings in 1950, then it all hinges on Walker. I think this is
 >a very fair and objective assessment, subject of course to
 >further evidence and logical interpretation. This is not a
 >satisfactory resolution of the matter and I'm not happy with it
 >- it is by no means disposed of.

You have proposed a lot of "what if" questions which are purely
speculative, highly questionable, and partly based on false
information and lack of good review of the Sarbacher/Walker
material. Sarbacher did NOT say he got his information from
Walker. All he said about Walker was that Walker attended all
the meetings on crashed saucers, while he didn't. Instead
Sarbacher said he received official reports on the subject
matter while at the Pentagon (do you really think the "official
reports" were Scully's book and TRUE Magazine?) The reports,
wrote Sarbacher, included mention of extremely light, tough
materials from the saucers. He also said he spoke to unnamed
"people at the office" about low-inertial mass instruments and
beings. The low masses would result in low inertial forces. This
sounds partly like the educated speculation of physicists and
engineers like Sarbacher trying to figure out how the craft and
crew could endure the high accelerations associated with UFOs.

Why do you persist with these strange ideas that Sarbacher was
basing his information from popular works like Scully's book or
TRUE Magazine? I don't get it. Sorry, it just seems like
nonsense to me.


David Rudiak








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 12

                   Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:33:25 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:35:26 -0400
Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Balaskas


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:39:11 EDT
 >Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:59:47 EDT
 >>Subject: CIA Files on Noah's Ark
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>FYI without comment:

 >>Bristol United Press
 >>Western Daily Press
 >>July 3, 2001

 >>Is this really Noah's ice tomb?

 >>Conspiracy Theory Suggests CIA Has Uncovered The Remains Of Biblical
 >>Boat On The Slopes Of Turkey'S Mt. Ararat

 >>Nicky Redfern

<snip>

 >Why mess around trying to get CIA stuff declassified when you
 >can get Russian 1 meter photos?

Hi Robert and Brad!

The "Ararat Anomaly" that has been imaged by the CIA is, in my
opinion, a smoke screen to discredit belief that there is a
giant ship near the summit of the massive ice capped Mount
Ararat in much the same way the Face on Mars was used to
discredit belief that life exists on another planet - and one so
close to Earth too.

Last summer I travelled to Mount Ararat in my search for
evidence that Noah's Ark is real. I uncovered much previously
unknown physical evidence (ancient tooled wood, video images,
highly credible witnesses, etc.) that convinced me that not only
is Noah's Ark real and on Mount Ararat, but that it could not be
the so-called CIA's "Ararat Anomaly" located on a western
glacier of Mount Ararat (sorry Dan Geib). Neither is it the
boat-shaped geological structure at the Durupinar site about 30
kilometers south of Mount Ararat that some have promoted as
Noah's Ark (another smoke screen).

Three years ago I made use of satellite images available through
the Internet to prove to my satisfaction that a giant egg shaped
UFO (it was said to be about 2000 feet across!) did not crash in
1991 in the mountains of Kirghizia near the border with China. I
compared recent archived photos taken by the various new high
resolution imaging satellites with the pre-1991 archived images
that are available through the US Geological Survey (which
include previously classified photos). A similar search can be
done for another giant vessel - Noah's Ark - said to be on Mount
Ararat in eastern Turkey but there are some difficulties. One of
these is money.

High resolution images of the northeast region of Mount Ararat
just below the summit are not yet available through the Internet
so a free search cannot be easily done. It is necessary to order
images taken around mid-August when the ice cap on Mount Ararat
has receded the most and that are without clouds. While I was
there last year the summit of Mount Ararat (but not the smaller
nearby "Little Ararat") was shrouded in thick cloud by late
morning. The region around the north-eastern Abich, or Araxes
glaciers is the place to look (the "Ararat Anomaly" and the
Durupinar sites are not even mentioned in the local traditions
as locations of Noah's Ark). The approximate latitudes and
longitudes to use in your requests for high resolution satellite
images are:

39 deg., 42.0 min. to 39 deg., 42.5 min. North and
44 deg., 17.5 min. to 44 deg., 18.2 min. East.

The fees for the many high resolution satellite images needed to
cover the entire area given by the co-ordinates above will not
be cheap but I think it will be very rewarding. I could not
interest anyone involved with Canada's Radarsat satellite (Sue
Strickland will be interested to know that not only can Radarsat
produce high resolution images of the Earth's surface but can do
so even through clouds and in the dark!) to do this for free as
a public service. Although it is the public that ultimately pay
the expenses, I have not bothered to approach Canada's
Communications Security Establishment (which has a secret second
floor room at an unmarked building on Heron Road in Ottawa where
NSA's Talent and CIA's Keyhole satellite data is received and
processed) with my request to image Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat.

What is really frustrating is when fellow ufologists have
"proof" for the reality of the UFO phenomena (such as possessing
UFO crash photos or having seen E.T. alien bodies) but decide to
keep this information to themselves in much the same way a
certain unnamed JPL scientist and colleagues know that Noah's
Ark is real having seen it in person.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 12

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 11 Jul 2001 19:54:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:11:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:35:13 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >I haven't seen Sheehan's explanation why he wanted "classified
 >sections" of BB in order to do a briefing at JPL?

He answers this on the Rense interview.

 >This of course
 >raises more questions: What documentary evidence is there that
 >Sheehan ever gave a 3-hour briefing on UFO's to JPL in 1977?

Contact him and ask him.

 >How
 >would Marcia Smith of Congressional Research Service have the
 >authority or the connections to arrange for such a briefing to
 >be given by the Jesuit order's chief attorney to JPL? Why would
 >she do so? Why not have the Southern Baptist Convention -- to
 >which Carter then belonged -- give the UFO lectures to JPL and
 >review "classified sections" of Blue Book?

Go to the MUFON convention and ask him. I will as promised
pass on your questions.

 >Could the CRS today, in 2001, arrange for, say, the President of
 >the Southern Baptist Convention to give a UFO lecture to, say,
 >MIT's radar scientists and engineers at its Lincoln Labs?
 >Wouldn't that be an exceedingly strange thing to do?

If he knew something about UFOs - maybe. Graham was called in to
try and convince President Clinton to declassify the UFO
material. These are hypotheticals that could be asked till the
cover-up ends.

 >I notice you don't respond to the grammatical absurdity of
 >Sheehan referring to a "classified section" of an organization
 >of people as something one puts in a microfilm reader. Didn't he
 >understand what Project Blue Book was if he himself called it a
 >"Project"? I mean, did he think Blue Book was a "book" or
 >something??

Are you sure he actually made this exact error. Maybe it was my
error. Again check Rense's interview for his exact words.

 >And where are Sheehan's copies of the two alleged 1977 UFO
 >reports that Marcia Smith purportedly prepared in response to
 >President Carter's supposed request to the House?


Contact him and ask him.


Grant











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 12

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 11 Jul 2001 19:57:55 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:14:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Steve Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:22:07 -0400

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Date: 10 Jul 2001 20:46:53 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 ><snip>

 >>Sheehan may address some of these questions in the couple
 >>occasions when he talks on UFOs in the next couple weeks.

 >>Lets wait and see what he says. Smith could answer all these
 >>questions too, but I doubt she will. She has had the e-mail a
 >>couple days now.

 >>Grant

 >Grant-

 >Follow the process through if you don't get a reply. You can
 >forward your questions to your elected Representative in the
 >House and ask them to "officially" request clarification from
 >Ms. Smith. They will most likely forward your request directly
 >to CRS and that will generate an official response.

 >My understanding is that Marcia Smith really isn't interested in
 >becoming involved in the UFO genre, and she may not want to
 >respond for fear of becoming further entrenched.

Thanks for this. I had planned to do something else, but will
work on this. I am a Canadian so I don't think they will answer
my letter. An excellent plan. Thanks.

I also don't think Marcia is much interested in cutting her own
throat.


Grant










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 12

                         Re: Talk And Action - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:19:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:16:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Young


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 06:23:09 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:29:08 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>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).

 >The system used by the Condon Committee at Harrisburg was
 >situated on top of a hospital building and was aimed straight
 >overhead at zenith. It did not cover the horizon (its coverage
 >started at 10� above the horizon). How on earth could it have
 >picked up _any_ UFO's from miles away, unless the UFO just
 >happened to fly overhead?

Are you claiming that the cameras, designed to photograph
meteors, could not pick up an object brighter than 4th magnitude
unless it was directly overhead?  Are you suggesting that for
some strange reason known only to the ETs the UFOs were never
near the city, but only toward the distant horizon?  Why, then
were hundreds of UFO reports coming from Harrisburg?

 >The Condon Committee rightly criticized the system as of
 >little use for UFO detection and tracking.

Maybe not perfect, but what if the results were ZERO saucers
_during_ 100 sightings?  What if many sightings came from a
distant hilltop packed with believers and saucer club members
but no one in the direction of the presumed UFOs downtown
noticed anything?

Negative results with any recording system will place some kind
of parameter on a phenomenon.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 12

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 11 Jul 2001 20:27:28 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:18:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:06:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>Date: 10 Jul 2001 12:53:54 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 21:19:07 -0000

 >>>>From: Grant Cmaeron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>>Date: 6 Jul 2001 19:34:43 -0700
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>>>Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:33:06 -0000

 >><snip>

 >>>Etc., etc., ad nauseum. With all due respect, Grant, you are
 >>>here simply repeating the story told by Sheehan without
 >>>acknowledging or responding to the many factual errors, claims
 >>>that do not fit with the way Washington works, and other
 >>>questionable assertions that have been ponited out to you by me,
 >>>Brad Sparks, and Jan Aldrich. Repetition is not truth.

 >>Your claims of factual error are based on standard Washington
 >>protocols.

 ><snip>

 >No, Grant, you yourself pointed out at least two factual errors
 >or contradictions in Sheehan's story: (1) Sheehan claimed that
 >Carter met with DCI Bush while Carter was President and that
 >that was when Bush purportedly refused to give CIA UFO
 >information to him, but you pointed out that was incorrect, Bush
 >left office at CIA before Carter became President. (2) Carter
 >therefore could not have had a "major confrontation with Bush"
 >because he wouldn't have been President yet while Bush headed
 >CIA.

These are not based on comparing protocols. They are based on
simple timing.

 >The CRS doesn't build missiles or bridges, it doesn't analyze
 >spy satellite photos or have a hot line to Moscow, and it
 >doesn't investigate government corruption or audit records and
 >procedures.

And NASA didn't fly spy planes till Powers got shot down over
the USSR.

 >I'm giving these as examples of simple facts about
 >government agency functions, which have nothing to do with
 >"protocols." The fact that the GAO and OTA were Congressional
 >agencies that did do some of those things and yet weren't asked
 >to do Carter's UFO investigation and requesting of CIA
 >declassification of UFO documents is difficult to believe.

Where did you find out that they weren't asked? Who mentioned CIA
declassification of UFO documents?

 >Marcia Smith certainly would have known or found out about other
 >Congressional agencies such as GAO and OTA being involved with
 >similar requests from Carter if she had been let in on such an
 >extremely sensitive political secret of the alleged CIA Director
 >Bush refusing to cooperate with President Carter's request for
 >UFO information.

How do you know she didn't? Have you talked to her? Did you
interview her? If you did tell me what she said. At this point
she doesn't seem prepared to show me the error of Sheehan ways.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 12

               CCCRN News: 07-12-01 Formation Report 2001 #5 -

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:29:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:21:20 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: 07-12-01 Formation Report 2001 #5 -


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

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

July 12, 2001

_____________________________


(UPDATE) FORMATION REPORT 2001 #5 - SURREY, BRITISH COLUMBIA


FIELD REPORT

This afternoon, July 11, I was finally able to go to the
location of the reported formation in Surrey, BC,  just a few
miles from where I live in Vancouver and the CCCRN office. I was
accompanied by Graham Conway of UFOBC.

The formation is a long line of circles ranging in size from
approximately 1.5 metres (5 feet) to 4.5 metres (15 feet)
diameter, stretching at least a good 90 metres (300 feet) or so
along an embankment beside the very busy freeway (constant
traffic) near the Port Mann bridge. The 'crop' is a wildy
growing mix of wheat and tall grass. In the middle of all the
circles is a large, prominent, albeit crude rendition of the
Canadian flag (while not matching the actual Canadian flag, with
a distorted maple leaf, it is still quite symmetrical in overall
design), extending from the top of the hill to the bottom, about
9.2 metres (30 feet), and around 12 metres (40 feet) or so long.
This obvious display of probable human art of course makes the
whole arrangement suspect, but some interesting observations are
still worth being noted.

The embankment is very steep, indeed it is difficult to keep
one's footing without shoes with a good tread; if not careful,
one could easily find themselves tumbling down the slope and out
onto the freeway (the bottom of the hill ends right at the edge
of the road)! The circles are all single, variously spaced, with
four on one side of the flag and four on the other side. The
original witness reported only two small single circles about
1.5 metres (5 feet) diameter each, on July 2. David Pengilly of
UFOBC, who drove past them the next day, also reported two small
circles about the same size, consistent with the original
report. However, when Chad Deetken went to look at them on July
4, he counted six larger circles, with the flag. When Graham and
I went there today, July 11, we counted eight circles plus the
flag. It would seem that the flag and possibly up to six circles
have been added to the original two circles reported. Driving
past on the freeway, you can't miss them, they stick out like a
sore thumb. The problem is determining which are the two
original circles, and if they themselves have been modified
(made larger).

The lay in all the circles ranges from fairly neat to hapharzard
and messy, with crimped stalks, in counterclockwise flows. Some
circles are more circular and some are rougher looking. The
largest circle is probably the best looking of all of them. The
lay in the two rectangular sections of the flag is swept in one
direction, from the top of the hill straight down to the bottom.
Short paths can be seen leading to most of the circles from the
top of the hill. No blown or stretched nodes were seen.

On the surface, this appears to be an obvious Canada Day (July
1) prank, with additions later on, yet I have to admit I'm
impressed by how anyone could have made these on such a steep
incline. Given that fact, it is not really that bad an effort...

Both Graham and I took a number of photos, from another hill
across the freeway and closeup, which will be posted to the web
site when they are ready.


Paul Anderson
Director
CCCRN


____________________________


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:
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 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:22:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:25:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Gates


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 10 Jul 2001 20:46:53 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:24:58 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >>This doesn't help any - _why_ would someone with Sheehan's
 >>non-scientist political-religious background be asked by Marcia
 >>Smith to give a briefing to JPL SETI personnel which takes one
 >>away from UFO's (SETI's antagonism to UFO's is long-standing and
 >>well-known)? That makes no sense. Nor does Sheehan asking for
 >>"classified sections" of Blue Book (aside from the grammatical
 >>absurdity, Blue Book was an activity, a project, not a thing or
 >>a set of files). Why should he care about classified or not
 >>classified in order to give a briefing to JPL SETI people?

 >>Don't say few questions have been asked of Sheehan - I've asked
 >>dozens now.

 >Every question that I think Danny would be able to answer has
 >been passed on. I really don't think Danny can answer the
 >question why he was picked to do a briefing at JPL. Maybe he
 >can. He has answered why he wanted the classified Blue Book
 >stuff.

 >Sheehan may address some of these questions in the couple
 >occasions when he talks on UFOs in the next couple weeks.

Grant,

I have a question for Sheehan. What and or when was the date of
the briefing to JPL? One would think there would be JPL records
which indicate a briefing from Sheehan happened, which would
lead further creedence to his story.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                        Re: The Nigerian Scam - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:23:46 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:28:48 -0400
Subject: Re: The Nigerian Scam - Hatch


 >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:36:14 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: Michael Woods <mike.woods@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Nigerian Scam

 >Hello Listers,

 >Here as promised is a scalp of the Canadian Press story about an
 >arrest in the global Nigerian Letter Scam.

 >----------

 >Three arrested in Toronto after global police probe cracks
 >Nigerian scam

 >JAMES MCCARTEN

 >TORONTO (CP) - Three people have been arrested for their alleged
 >role in a Canadian wing of a notorious global con job known
 >around the world for decades as the Nigerian letter scam.

 >The arrests Tuesday follow a three-year investigation by a joint
 >task force that included members of the RCMP, the Federal Bureau
 >of Investigations and the U.S. Secret Service, said police Staff
 >Sgt. Darryl Ross.

 >"There's a lottery mentality out there," Ross told a news
 >conference as he explained how more than 300 victims of the
 >worldwide scam have each lost between $52,000 US and a whopping
 >$5 million US.

<snip>

 >The victim is also asked to send money, usually about $10,000
 >US, ostensibly for "legal fees and administration costs," Ross
 >said.

 >"Once the funds are sent, the hook is in."

 >In phase two of the scam, which was operating in Canada, the
 >perpetrators, posing as North American merchant bankers working
 >for the Nigerian Central Bank, contact the victim to say the
 >funds have arrived.

 >Additional fees for taxes, duties and environmental levies are
 >requested, ranging from $50,000 to "hundreds of thousands of
 >dollars," Ross said.

 >"The scam continues until the victim is broke," he said. "The
 >fraudulent business deal is never consummated."

 >Such telemarketing scams make for costly, time-consuming and
 >labour-intensive police work, said FBI special agent Harry
 >Penich, the assistant legal attache to the U.S. Embassy in
 >Ottawa.

 >"It is a bit like shoveling smoke," Penich said.

 >"It takes a substantial amount of effort to weave through all of
 >the dodges that the criminal telemarketer will put in front of
 >you. This is sophisticated, high-tech, organized crime."

<snip>

 >Ainsley Anthony Drakes, 34 and Richard Brewster, 33, both of
 >Toronto, and Wenceslaus Utomi, 47 of Richmond Hill, Ont. turned
 >themselves in to police Tuesday.

 >Each has been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit
 >fraud, fraud against the general public and laundering the
 >proceeds of crime.

 >� The Canadian Press, 2001

 >----------

 >Mike Woods

Hello Mike:

Thanks for the article!

(see original for full account.)

I'm glad to see those three caught, but the article seems to
indicate the tip of an iceberg. It now appears more like a
general scam that anyone perpetrate. The arrest of these three
will not be the end of it by a long shot.

Its still nice to see a few of them caught, so its not _all_
like shoveling smoke.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 13

               Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report' -

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:32:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:39:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report' -


 >Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:53:18 +0100
 >From: Jean-Philippe Dain <aska@noos.fr>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report'

 >>From: Richard Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:52:33 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:31:23 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Nolane

 >>It [the report] reflects more the views of the serviceman than
 >>anything else. A short extract was used in the first Special
 >>UFO issue of VSD in 1998 and the serviceman was very upset to
 >>have not been cited as the author!

 >I am the author of the Directorate Military Intelligence (DRM)
 >report entitled "Implications militaires du phnomne des ovnis"
 >(Military Implications of the UFO Phenomenon).

 >Gildas Bourdais, in an IUR article entitled 'From GEPAN To
 >SEPRA: Official UFO Studies In France', wrote "A study was
 >produced at about the same time, but these were very limited
 >actions." -- IUR, WINTER 2000, p.13:

 >http://www.cufos.org/gepan.pdf

 >It was not properly a "study" but more exactly a synthesis note
 >concerning military aspect of the UFO Phenomenon. I doubt the
 >real capacity of Gildas Bourdais to evaluate consequences of
 >this report because he is outside the military administration.

To the List,

I am afraid many members of this List may not be aware of what
Jean-Philippe Dain is talking about. So, let's try to explain
briefly.....

Dain is quoting an article that I wrote at the request of Mark
Rodeghier for the International UFO Reporter (IUR), the review
of Cufos, which has been published in the issue of winter
2000-2001 under the title 'From GEPAN to SEPRA: Official UFO
Studies In France'.

The purpose of this article was to fill a certain lack of
information on these studies, after many years of polemics which
had clouded the subject, the last episode being the bitter
attacks against the "Cometa report" published in July 1999.

That report was not an official study but, because it was signed
by senior military officers and military engineers, it did have
a kind of 'official' look, and as a consequence its publication
reactivated many old critics against those official studies at
GEPAN and SEPRA, now headed by Jean-Jacques Velasco at CNES,
often accused of hiding things and despising private ufologists.

One of the polemists was Perry Petrakis, first on the internet
and then in his review 'Phenomena'. In the issue No 42 published
in September, he wrote a vehement article titled 'The War Of The
Worlds, COMETA Version', trying hard to ridicule the report
because they gave some credence to false claims ("canulars")
such as, said Petrakis, UFO crashes, abductions, and the ETH,
dubbed here an "exotic" hypothesis.

Petrakis, as you see, belongs to the skeptical trend of French
ufology, still strong although declining, it seems.

In the Fall of 2000, Petrakis found a new angle of attack
against the COMETA report, by promoting a little known text
written in 1995 inside the military intelligence services, the
DRM (Direction du renseignement Militaire), called 'Implications
militaires du phnomne des ovnis' (Military Implications of the
UFO Phenomenon), of which Jean-Philippe Dain now confirms,
publicly, to have been the author. In a special issue (No 44)
called: 'UFOs: The True Document Of The Defense', Petrakis
explained again, on six pages, that the COMETA report was a
worthless document and that the "real stuff" was the 15 pages
note of Jean-Philippe Dain, (his name was not given at the time)
who was then a young graduate in sociology doing his military
service there.

In his review, Petrakis gave an extensive summary of it.

As everyone noted in France, this was a very overblown claim,
which did not add any credibility to his declining little
review.

 >The purpose of this document is not to persuade of the existence
 >of UFOs as extraterrestrial vehicles or make revelations about
 >extraterrestrial presence on Earth but to inform, with
 >objectivity, concerned people and administrations with a neutral
 >tone. The aim of such a report is not action but to give
 >elements of appreciation.

About the contents of Dain's report, it may be noted that,
first, Dain carefully avoids discussing the ETH, which he
considers, like Petrakis, to be an unscientific approach.

On the other hand, he develops repeatedly the theme of UFOs as
misinterpretations of secret planes, and that this confusion
could be actually encouraged to hide real secret planes from the
public.

And of course the United States are suspected to do that. To
document the idea, Dain cites the infiltration of ufo
organizations like NICAP in the 50's!

Another idea, which stems obviously from the books of Jacques
Vallee, is that American secret services could use the ufo
phenomenon as a disinformation tool in order to cover secret
experiments and "Black programs". And the promotion of the
belief in extraterrestrials, as a tool of psychological war.....

This is the kind of suppositions which appear in several books
of Jacques Vallee, notably with his speculations on the
"Pentacle letter", which have been properly defused by a CUFOS
inquiry, published in IUR of May/June 1993. This is not to say
that no such operation has ever implemented, but I find very
"unscientific", and suspect, to put it forward as a global
explanation for UFOs!

In short, I admit that I am not an insider of French military
matters (I don't think Dain is either), but from what I know,
the Dain report does not weight much in comparison with the
Cometa report.

One last remark, this one about Jacques Vallee.

Among the articles against the Cometa report, one was written by
French skeptic Claude Maug, and translated in English. It is
now on the NIDS site, of which Vallee is adviser, and also on
the site of the Society for Scientific Exploration, with a
favorable introduction by Vallee, called here the translator of
the article.

In fact its is that article, first published in the MUFON
Journal, to which I reacted with my article. I asked NIDS to
publish it on its Web site, with the agreement of IUR, in order
to give a response to the Maug article, but to no avail. They
did not even answer me when I sent the article. What kind of
cooking are they doing at NIDS ?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:32:51 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:47:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Bourdais


 >From: Steve Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:22:07 -0400

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Date: 10 Jul 2001 20:46:53 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 ><snip>

 >>Sheehan may address some of these questions in the couple
 >>occasions when he talks on UFOs in the next couple weeks.

 >>Lets wait and see what he says. Smith could answer all these
 >>questions too, but I doubt she will. She has had the e-mail a
 >>couple days now.

 >Follow the process through if you don't get a reply. You can
 >forward your questions to your elected Representative in the
 >House and ask them to "officially" request clarification from
 >Ms. Smith. They will most likely forward your request directly
 >to CRS and that will generate an official response.

 >My understanding is that Marcia Smith really isn't interested in
 >becoming involved in the UFO genre, and she may not want to
 >respond for fear of becoming further entrenched.


Many thanks to the participants of this very technical debate,
hard to follow at times, but quite interesting.

Special thanks to Grant Cameron for not giving up to the sharp
critics.

I have a couple of remarks and questions regarding the
non-answer, so far, of Marcia Smith.

There are basically two main options: has Daniel Sheehan told
the truth (except for rather minor mistakes), or has he invented
a story?

It it is an invention, then there is no problem for Marcia Smith
to say so. The fact that she does not is already interesting. It
is not just a two days silence.

Sheehan has been telling his story for quite some time. I
listened to it when he spoke at the Laughlin Conference in March
2000. There has been plenty of time for Marcia Smith to redress
things if necessary.

On the other hand, if the story of Sheehan is true,
can she confirm it?

The revelations of Daniel Sheehan undoubtedly contain a breach
of secrecy. He said, publicly, he saw in secret military files,
photos of a crashed UFO. And he said he had access to them
through Marcia Smith.

If this is true, then you don't have to know from where the
wind blows to assume that she has been briefed since
quite some time about the rules of military secrecy!

It is the same problem for all 'insider' witnesses. They are not
authorized to talk publicly. So, if she denies more or less the
Sheehan story, I am afraid it will come a bit late to be
completely convincing, considering the high stakes and, no
doubt, the high pressure surrounding ufo secrecy.

About Daniel Sheehan, I see that there are some bizarre twists
in his story. I am not impressed by his probable mistake about
the dates (President or President-elect), about the name of the
files (Blue Book or not Blue Book !).

A more serious criticism - it is improbable that secret military
files would had been brought, under military guard, to the
Library of Congress. On the other hand, let's just suppose that
the guardians of these archives don't want anybody to visit the
base were they are located because it is too secret, would not
that give an explanation ?

Another serious objection is, why would Sheehan have been asked
to talk to scientists of the Jet propulsion Laboratory working
on SETI? This does not seem so strange to me, considering the
philosophical and religious implications of that question.

Daniel Sheehan is lawyer of great reputation, who has worked for
the Jesuits, and may well have been found apt to talk about
these aspects, so it seems to me.

The Jesuits are a kind of "think tank" for the Catholic church.
The same remark can be made about asking him to try to obtain
information on ET life from the Vatican. Anyone who has studied
the question of ET life and religions will not be surprised by
such an approach, and Sheehan seemed to be in a position to try
such an inquiry.

One last remark: what kind of benefit could a man like Sheehan
draw from inventing such a story? I would rather think that he
has been taking a big risk.

So, I suggest that we take the Sheehan testimony very seriously.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                          Secrecy News -- 07/12/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:08:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:52:16 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 07/12/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
July 12, 2001

**CYBER SECURITY BILL INTRODUCED
**HANSSEN:  VIRUS INFECTED NSA
**SPECTER ON MUELLER, WEN HO LEE


CYBER SECURITY BILL INTRODUCED

A controversial bill intended to encourage private companies to
share information about computer security threats with the
government was re-introduced in the House of Representatives on
Tuesday.  "The Cyber Security Information Act of 2001" is
sponsored by Reps. Tom Davis and Jim Moran.

A major premise of the bill is that the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) discourages private industry from sharing information
with the government because of a fear that sensitive or
proprietary information will be disclosed through a FOIA
request.

"Companies are concerned that information voluntarily shared
with the government that reports on or concerns corporate
security may be subject to FOIA," said Rep. Davis.  "Access to
sensitive information may fall into the hands of terrorists,
criminals, and other individuals and organizations capable of
exploiting vulnerabilities and harming the U.S."

Moreover, he warned, "Unfiltered, unmediated information may be
misinterpreted by the public and undermine public confidence in
the country's critical infrastructures."

There is no evidence that the FOIA, which has exemptions for
proprietary data, could be used to extract confidential business
information.  Nor is there much reason to believe that companies
would be eager to share truly sensitive information with the
government, regardless of FOIA standards.

Nevertheless, the bill would create a new FOIA exemption for
critical infrastructure information.  There are already over 80
particular exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act written
into law, and the vitality of the Act is threatened each year as
Congress adds new limits to its reach.

Rep. Davis' floor July 10 floor statement introducing the Cyber
Security Information Act of 2001 may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/h071001.html


HANSSEN: VIRUS INFECTED NSA

"NSA's secure email system became infected with the ILOVEYOU
virus today," wrote confessed spy Robert Hanssen in an email
message on May 4, 2000, referring to the National Security
Agency.  "Now everyone is asking how did it get into a system
which supposedly is secure."

A selection of email messages authored by Hanssen was published
by the Washington Times' Insight Magazine in its July 16 issue.

The messages, as presented by Insight Magazine, are dominated by
expressions of contempt for Clinton Administration security
policies.  But Hanssen, who is reported to be a devout Catholic,
expresses admiration for Israeli security practices.  "It isn't
for nothing that God chose them to carry the message," he wrote.
"Remember, God is Jewish."

The Hanssen emails ("Inside the Emails of a Spy," by Paul M.
Rodriguez) can be viewed here:

http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200107321.shtml


SPECTER ON MUELLER, WEN HO LEE

Congressional oversight of the widely criticized Wen Ho Lee
espionage investigation "was stymied at every turn by the FBI
refusing to make available information," Senator Arlen Specter
said yesterday.

The conditions of Dr. Lee's incarceration "had all the earmarks
of an effort at the top of the Justice Department and FBI to
coerce a guilty plea," he said.

Sen. Specter reviewed the challenges and problems facing the FBI
in anticipation of the upcoming confirmation hearing of Robert
Mueller to be FBI Director.  See his July 11 statement here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_cr/s071101.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 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                       Chilean Senator Vs. Chupacabras

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 08:46:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:55:28 -0400
Subject: Chilean Senator Vs. Chupacabras


Chilean senator criticizes authorities and so-called media
objectiveness

7-12-1
Source: El Mercurio de Calama

An objective fact was observed by the entire country on
television as it was also highly described by newspapers,
magazines, and all the radio newscasts; it was the case of the
massive animal deaths in northern Chile.

Another fact that was made public was the intense involvement of
police and customs officials, as well as other investigative
organizations in Chile that participated during countless
numbers of times in the autopsies performed on many dead
animals, all of which were conducted based on facts and evidence
in relation with this case.

Unfortunately, it�s been more than six months since the facts
were first brought up and we haven�t yet received something as
simple as a technical report from any of the appropriate
authorities. Nevertheless, what has caught my attention, and
indeed caused me to react this way, is the fact that despite all
the press and media coverage regarding this issue, not a single
government authority is motivated to give its own version or any
kind of statement to explain the situation in a rational manner.

The reports of these events to the police and the press have
somehow decreased, yet instead, we�re starting to see an
increase of scoffs and laughs, accompanied by jokes that seek to
ridicule a legitimate concern.

One irrefutable fact is that many farmers have lost a
significant part of their financial stability due to social
problems caused by the current situation. For that reason, it
seems difficult to understand why some people and some in the
media only see in all of these events an imaginative story.

Perhaps what�s more worrisome is the consequence of not
releasing any reasonable reports regarding this matter; as a
result, this information void allows plenty of room for
speculations and provocative stories.

In addition to all this, we still know nothing about the
autopsies, which means that due to the lack of a rational
outcome, several economic problems emerge in an area that is
already one of the poorest in northern Chile.

The entire country had the opportunity to watch the spectacle of
policemen and experts looking for answers from the unknown as
they followed the tracks of a mysterious predator. In several
television channels, the 'Chupacabras' case was even compared to
something out of an 'X-Files' episode.

Nevertheless, what was forgotten and unconsidered was the
abandonment and the misery surrounding many families, as their
vital source of work and income was no longer. We speak of a
significant property loss of individuals already in poverty, an
objective reality that nobody covers in the media, revealing a
total lack of sensibility and null solidarity, as well as
attitudes that are more terrifying than the mysterious beast
itself.

It�s not the time for ridiculing the facts, nor those who are
concerned about clarifying the situation. This is the time to
get more serious and mature as we need to take a deeper look at
the world that surrounds us.


Senator Carlos Cantero


Translated by Mario Andrade, R.D.C.


Dr. Virgilio Snchez-Ocejo

Miami UFO Center
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/ufomiami/index.html
CHUPACABRAS:
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/ufomiami/Chupacabras/chupacabras.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 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:04:40 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:00:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 20:22:24 -0000

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:44:45 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

I had previously posted,

 >>>>There are now several organizations which collect reports like
 >>>>this, but in 1973 the AMS and the Smithsonian Astrophysical
 >>>>Observatory's Scientific Events Network were about it, and
 >>>>scattered observers for the Association of Lunar & Planetary
 >>>>Observers. Still, even now, few fireballs are actually reported,
 >>>>whether they are visible or not.

You responded,

 >>>For a meteor watcher, this is a strangely inaccurate statement.
 >>>Fireballs are reported all the time. My files are bulging with
 >>>reports from the last few years. As it turns out, I do have the
 >>>AMS fireball list for 1973 in my file (I had quite candidly
 >>>forgotten that), and it shows no fireball on or near the date in
 >>>quesation. However, it includes something like 125-150 for the
 >>>year and about 20 for the month of October, most around the
 >>>Orionids shower.

Then, I wrote,

 >>Do you have the AMS data from observers in the area at the time
 >>of the incident? If an observer were actively monitoring the sky
 >>near Mansfield (I think a 50 mile radius would work) and saw
 >>nothing, then it would be of interest and probably eliminate the
 >>fireball hypothesis. However, if there were no observers active
 >>in the area, the AMS records are not significant. I think the
 >>AMS fireball reports were mostly (if not all) recorded by meteor
 >>observers who report them as part of their observations. They
 >>are not usually filed by passersby who witnessed a fireball.
 >>This is a matter of "If a tree falls and there is nobody around
 >>to hear it... ".

Now, you repond,

 >AMS obviously has meteor observers in Ohio. Try again!

But, did they have any observers counting meteors in Ohio at the
time of the Coyne helicopter incident?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.] - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:43:46 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:02:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.] - Randle


 >From: David RudiakDRudiak@aol.com
 >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:15:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 06:05:06 EDT
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:06:00 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Sparks

Good Morning Brad, David, all -

 >>Neither one claimed to have been first-hand witnesses of alleged
 >>alien artifacts or bodies

 >Not necessarily. If you believe Whitley Strieber, he spoke to
 >Sarbacher shortly before his death in 1986 (see his book
 >"Breakthrough"). According to Strieber, 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. ...What I can be certain about is that it was not
 >produced by an technology that we were aware of in 1947, or
 >now."

Well, again, not necessarily. The problem here is that Strieber,
in his 1987 best seller Communion wrote that Sarbacher had died
"a few days before I became aware of his letter." Strieber
continued that he had unable to personally interview him because
of that. Strieber didn't mention where that last interview was
conducted and who had conducted it.

And, all of this came out because William Steinman was
attempting to verify a UFO crash near Aztec, New Mexico in 1948.
So, while almost everyone has suggested that the Sarbacher
material was about the Roswell crash, Steinman interpreted it
differently and we are left with a slight area of confusion.

So, I'm not sure that the Strieber material does anything to
corroborate anything. We seem to have two statements that would
be mutually exclusive.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:03:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:04:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:06:05 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:37:20 EDT
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:36:43 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

 >>Thank you for explaining in detail many of the reasons that
 >>people report the Planet Venus as a UFO.

 >You're a bit confused Bob. I was explaining the many reasons why
 >several policeman would _not_ think Venus was a large,
 >disk-shaped or oval object with a dark dome on top, riding on an
 >ice-cream cone shaped glow of light, at times being blindingly
 >bright and lighting up the ground, flying over their heads, and
 >appearing in the west when Venus was in the east.

You can throw out all kind of theoretical BS you want as to why
somebody could never be fooled about your favorite subject,
saucers with little green men, but consider this:

Condon Report Case #37, wherein a group of police officers made
the same kind of mistakes in perception and interpretation made
by officer Spaur and his associates with Venus.

Hynek concurred that this was indeed Venus when he wrote,  "It
is a fantastic example of how persuasive the planet Venus can be
as a nonscreened UFO.  Police officers in 11 counties were
"taken in" by this planet." (The UFO experience, p. 205)

Some of the officers' descriptions:

"We followed the object, which was then a bright red,
football-shaped light, for about eight miles out into the
country. It appeared to be as big as the moon in the sky."

How can something that is a point of light be "football shaped"?
Not possible, according to you, when it is Venus instead of an
ET ship. "It can't be, therefore it isn't" is something that is
often thrown at skeptics, but it seems to suit believers just as
well.

Another account by the policemen in Case 37, noted by Hynek, "It
was a good distance in front of us, pulling away, so we turned
around to come back to town. The object turned on us and
followed. It gained on us and was going about 75 mph. After the
object caught up with us, it pulled into the sky, emitting a
beam of bluish light that illuminated the roadway."

How can Venus illuminate the roadway (with a beam yet) even
though it was magnitude -4?  Can't happen, according to David
Rudiak.

The answer is that you take what you know about the human eye
and then - attach a human brain which is perhaps confused, maybe
scared, but filled with years of cultural conditioning regarding
little grey men zooming all around in 50 foot wide spaceships
and maybe you'll get the answer.

Or maybe not.

 >Happens all the time. Otherwise, we would never have any stars
 >and planets mistaken for saucers filled with little men.

  "All the time" - Imagine that. Billions of people see the
  stars  and planets every night. Last I looked the newspapers
  weren't filled with millions of stories of people seeing
  "saucers filled with little men" because someone misidentified
  Venus. It actually happens extremely rarely.

If you do not believe that Venus is a major cause of UFO
reports, then you probably do not believe that there are any
IFOs, either.

If you really believe that there are such things as IFOs, please
cite the largest categories of IFOs, and then the major source
of IFOs in these subgroups.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

"Your adherence to the CSICOP credo is admirable: Non potest,
ergo non est [It can't be, therefore it isn't]."
         - - 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 >
   Jul > Jul 13

               Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report' -

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:10:47 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:15:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report' -


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:32:45 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report'
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:53:18 +0100
 >>From: Jean-Philippe Dain <aska@noos.fr>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report'

 >>>From: Richard Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:52:33 -0500
 >>>Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:31:23 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Nolane

 >That report was not an official study but, because it was signed
 >by senior military officers and military engineers, it did have
 >a kind of 'official' look, and as a consequence its publication
 >reactivated many old critics against those official studies at
 >GEPAN and SEPRA, now headed by Jean-Jacques Velasco at CNES,
 >often accused of hiding things and despising private ufologists.
 >
 >One of the polemists was Perry Petrakis, first on the internet
 >and then in his review 'Phenomena'. In the issue No 42 published
 >in September, he wrote a vehement article titled 'The War Of The
 >Worlds, COMETA Version', trying hard to ridicule the report
 >because they gave some credence to false claims ("canulars")
 >such as, said Petrakis, UFO crashes, abductions, and the ETH,
 >dubbed here an "exotic" hypothesis.

 >And of course the United States are suspected to do that. To
 >document the idea, Dain cites the infiltration of ufo
 >organizations like NICAP in the 50's!

Gildas,

I accidentally erased your other posting in regard to Sheehan's
story, but this one will do to make the same point. This
constantly repeated statement that NICAP was "infiltrated" in
the 1950s is 99% myth and 1% unimportant fact. I know because I
was there, and I am tired of hearing this myth constantly
repeated.

Something very similar applies to Sheehan's story (and that's
all it is so far). Grant Cameron keeps circulating it, and when
people raise serious questions about its validity, he says "ask
Sheehan." Cameron is the one circulating the story and insisting
that we take it seriously, so it is up to him to check on its
obvious credibility problems. It is not up to us to try to prove
a negative. Furthermore, that shifts the burden of proof to us,
and we don't have the time or interest to chase down every
unsubstantiated claim. He is the advocate.

The bottom line is this. Sheehan's story, if true, would easily
blow the lid off any U.S. cover-up, if he is a credible witness.
And if he really did the things he claims to have done, he
should have ample documentation of it that he could easily
produce: Contracts, letters, pay records, tax forms.
Documentation of briefings to JPL and the like should be easy to
locate.

Why does he, instead of going to the major news media (N.Y.
Times, 60 Minutes...) or Congress, go around telling his story
to UFO believer groups? Why are we hearing that instead of
simply documenting his claims, he instead is planning some kind
of mock trial about UFOs? That sounds suspiciously like "show
biz" to me, not the modus operandi of a serious-minded person
who holds the key to exposing a cover-up.

His association with Steven Greer, another "show biz"
specialist, only deepens my suspicions as their joint efforts
unecessarily bog the issues down in partsan political
controversy. I don't like game playing. If Sheehan is telling
the truth, he owes it to everyone to ask for Congressional
hearings based on his own alleged experiences, and/or to give
in-depth interviews to major news media and let investigative
reporters dig out the facts.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                           Skywatcher News Update

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 13 Jul 2001 09:20:24 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:26:56 -0400
Subject: Skywatcher News Update

I am a little behind on putting out a current issue of the
Skywatcher, but I have now updated the Skywatch News website
with the July 2001 issue.

Visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~skywatcher12

and scroll down the page till you see the links for June 2001 and
July 2001 and click on July to see the latest issue.

I am keeping it down to three in-depth articles currently.
At least one on UFOs, one on Space Discoveries, and one on
Space Travel as it relates to our subject.  This format may
vary over time.

One reason I am posting this to this list is that
I would like to invite those among you who can write a
presentable article to contribute to future issues on the
Skywatcher.

I will also be adding a section for Skywatcher
sightings and encounters in future issues.


Sincerely,

Bill Hamilton
Exec Dir
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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                              Re: Ravenna 1966

From: Bill Hamilton  <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 13 Jul 2001 09:32:27 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:30:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:03:45 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:06:05 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:37:20 EDT
 >>>Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:36:43 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

 >>>Thank you for explaining in detail many of the reasons that
 >>>people report the Planet Venus as a UFO.

 >>You're a bit confused Bob. I was explaining the many reasons why
 >>several policeman would _not_ think Venus was a large,
 >>disk-shaped or oval object with a dark dome on top, riding on an
 >>ice-cream cone shaped glow of light, at times being blindingly
 >>bright and lighting up the ground, flying over their heads, and
 >>appearing in the west when Venus was in the east.

 >You can throw out all kind of theoretical BS you want as to why
 >somebody could never be fooled about your favorite subject,
 >saucers with little green men, but consider this:

 >Condon Report Case #37, wherein a group of police officers made
 >the same kind of mistakes in perception and interpretation made
 >by officer Spaur and his associates with Venus.

 >Hynek concurred that this was indeed Venus when he wrote, "It
 >is a fantastic example of how persuasive the planet Venus can be
 >as a nonscreened UFO. Police officers in 11 counties were
 >"taken in" by this planet." (The UFO experience, p. 205)

 >Some of the officers' descriptions:

 >"We followed the object, which was then a bright red,
 >football-shaped light, for about eight miles out into the
 >country. It appeared to be as big as the moon in the sky."

 >How can something that is a point of light be "football shaped"?
 >Not possible, according to you, when it is Venus instead of an
 >ET ship. "It can't be, therefore it isn't" is something that is
 >often thrown at skeptics, but it seems to suit believers just as
 >well.

 >Another account by the policemen in Case 37, noted by Hynek, "It
 >was a good distance in front of us, pulling away, so we turned
 >around to come back to town. The object turned on us and
 >followed. It gained on us and was going about 75 mph. After the
 >object caught up with us, it pulled into the sky, emitting a
 >beam of bluish light that illuminated the roadway."

 >How can Venus illuminate the roadway (with a beam yet) even
 >though it was magnitude -4? Can't happen, according to David
 >Rudiak.

 >The answer is that you take what you know about the human eye
 >and then - attach a human brain which is perhaps confused, maybe
 >scared, but filled with years of cultural conditioning regarding
 >little grey men zooming all around in 50 foot wide spaceships
 >and maybe you'll get the answer.

I have found the planet Venus or the star, Sirius, to be the
source of a few UFO reports. What I have heard from witnesses
was that they saw a bright light that seemed to move up and down
in the sky. With Sirius, it was flashing various colors. When
questioning the witness and asking that witness to point to the
location in the sky where they had seen Venus or Sirius, it was
easy to determine the causative agent behind the sighting.

Here is the rub though. The witness sees the suppossed UFO each
night returning to the same location. And that is exactly what
one would expect of a planet. I have never heard the witness
describe Venus as "red" or "as large as the moon" so these
police officers, who we expect to have some ability to observe
and describe their observations accurately for purposes of crime
reporting or suspect identification completely lose that ability
when it comes to seeing something unusual in the sky! This seems
like a stretch.

Even when having doubts about sighting Venus, a quick lookup in
Astronomy magazine or on the internet should identify its
location in the sky on any hour of any day of the year and the
experienced sky observer would not easily mistake Venus for a
UFO.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                    Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:27:34 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:34:55 -0400
Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Rimmer


 >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:33:25 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark

 >>>Is this really Noah's ice tomb?

 >>>Conspiracy Theory Suggests CIA Has Uncovered The Remains Of Biblical
 >>>Boat On The Slopes Of Turkey'S Mt. Ararat

 >>>Nicky Redfern

 ><snip>

 >>Why mess around trying to get CIA stuff declassified when you
 >>can get Russian 1 meter photos?

 >Hi Robert and Brad!
 >
 >The "Ararat Anomaly" that has been imaged by the CIA is, in my
 >opinion, a smoke screen to discredit belief that there is a
 >giant ship near the summit of the massive ice capped Mount
 >Ararat in much the same way the Face on Mars was used to
 >discredit belief that life exists on another planet - and one so
 >close to Earth too.

I must have missed something. Why on earth is the CIA interested
in the whereabouts or otherwise of Noah's Ark? Are they covering
up the Tooth Fairy as well, and those secret photos of Santa's
Workshop in Lapland?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

               Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.] - Cameron

From: Grant Cmaeron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 13 Jul 2001 15:46:40 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:56:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.] - Cameron


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:43:46 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.]
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: David RudiakDRudiak@aol.com
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:15:03 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 06:05:06 EDT
 >>>Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:06:00 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Sparks

 >Good Morning Brad, David, all -

 >>>Neither one claimed to have been first-hand witnesses of alleged
 >>>alien artifacts or bodies

 >>Not necessarily. If you believe Whitley Strieber, he spoke to
 >>Sarbacher shortly before his death in 1986 (see his book
 >>"Breakthrough"). According to Strieber, 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. ...What I can be certain about is that it was not
 >>produced by an technology that we were aware of in 1947, or
 >>now."

 >Well, again, not necessarily. The problem here is that Strieber,
 >in his 1987 best seller Communion wrote that Sarbacher had died
 >"a few days before I became aware of his letter." Strieber
 >continued that he had unable to personally interview him because
 >of that. Strieber didn't mention where that last interview was
 >conducted and who had conducted it.

Kevin is absolutely right here. Scott Crain and I picked up on
this and confronted Strieber. He never resolved the
inconsistancy. It seems quite clear Strieber never talked to
Sarbacher.

 >And, all of this came out because William Steinman was
 >attempting to verify a UFO crash near Aztec, New Mexico in 1948.
 >So, while almost everyone has suggested that the Sarbacher
 >material was about the Roswell crash, Steinman interpreted it
 >differently and we are left with a slight area of confusion.

Quite true again. Sarbacher was always clear he did not know
many of the details surrounding the Wright field briefings. When
Stanton Friedman interviewed him Sarbacher spent a lot of time
talking about a battery he had just invented. The UFO crash was
not something of primary importance in his life. I recall
Sarbacher only referred to the crash as "out west."

<snip>


Grant










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 13 Jul 2001 16:26:44 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:02:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:32:51 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Steve Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:22:07 -0400

 >>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>Date: 10 Jul 2001 20:46:53 -0700
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >><snip>

 >>>Sheehan may address some of these questions in the couple
 >>>occasions when he talks on UFOs in the next couple weeks.

 >>>Lets wait and see what he says. Smith could answer all these
 >>>questions too, but I doubt she will. She has had the e-mail a
 >>>couple days now.

 >>Follow the process through if you don't get a reply. You can
 >>forward your questions to your elected Representative in the
 >>House and ask them to "officially" request clarification from
 >>Ms. Smith. They will most likely forward your request directly
 >>to CRS and that will generate an official response.

 >>My understanding is that Marcia Smith really isn't interested in
 >>becoming involved in the UFO genre, and she may not want to
 >>respond for fear of becoming further entrenched.

 >Many thanks to the participants of this very technical debate,
 >hard to follow at times, but quite interesting.

 >Special thanks to Grant Cameron for not giving up to the sharp
 >critics.

 >I have a couple of remarks and questions regarding the
 >non-answer, so far, of Marcia Smith.

 >There are basically two main options: has Daniel Sheehan told
 >the truth (except for rather minor mistakes), or has he invented
 >a story?


Gildas,

An interesting and almost undiscussed point. Sheehan is a
prominent lawyer in federal circles. Very hard to believe he
would flush his whole 30 year career to tell some whacko story
about a field of investigation that has brought no prominence to
anyone in it.

 >It it is an invention, then there is no problem for Marcia Smith
 >to say so. The fact that she does not is already interesting. It
 >is not just a two days silence.

Poor woman is between a rock and a hard place. She has
researched UFOs enough to know what happens if one gets sucked
into the endless debate with a comment on either side of the
issue. Feel sorry that she has to be dragged in, but she has to
be. One reporter watching the story also seems to feel sorry for
her. When I asked for a media call to Smith for a comment on the
record, (should Marcia not respond to the e-mail) I was told
that this person did not know if that would be "appropriate".

 >Sheehan has been telling his story for quite some time. I
 >listened to it when he spoke at the Laughlin Conference in March
 >2000. There has been plenty of time for Marcia Smith to redress
 >things if necessary.

You listened to Sheehan in Laughlin which is more than I did. At
that time I had the same bias that seems to be affecting others
right now. When Sheehan gave the final address I was outside
talking on the Boardwalk. I figured "What the hell would some
civil rights lawyer from Harvard know about UFOs?"

I came in for the last-half of the address and was impressed at
the intelligence that he portrayed.

Worse yet, my roommate in Laughlin interviewed Sheehan for three
hours the night before in our room. I was in the room twice and
did not even listen to what they were talking about. I believe
they were discussing politics. Amazing what opportunities we
lose when we hang-on to our preconceived notions.

 >On the other hand, if the story of Sheehan is true,
 >can she confirm it?

She can, but doubt after a long career in Washington she will
cut her own throat. She lives there and knows how ugly it can
get if one gets caught up in a major story. I'd be hiding in the
weeds too, if I were in her position.

I will do what I can to get her to get her on the record.

<snip>


Grant










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 13 Jul 2001 16:35:03 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:07:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Cameron


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:22:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Date: 10 Jul 2001 20:46:53 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:24:58 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >><snip>

 >>>This doesn't help any - _why_ would someone with Sheehan's
 >>>non-scientist political-religious background be asked by Marcia
 >>>Smith to give a briefing to JPL SETI personnel which takes one
 >>>away from UFO's (SETI's antagonism to UFO's is long-standing and
 >>>well-known)? That makes no sense. Nor does Sheehan asking for
 >>>"classified sections" of Blue Book (aside from the grammatical
 >>>absurdity, Blue Book was an activity, a project, not a thing or
 >>>a set of files). Why should he care about classified or not
 >>>classified in order to give a briefing to JPL SETI people?

 >>>Don't say few questions have been asked of Sheehan - I've asked
 >>>dozens now.

 >>Every question that I think Danny would be able to answer has
 >>been passed on. I really don't think Danny can answer the
 >>question why he was picked to do a briefing at JPL. Maybe he
 >>can. He has answered why he wanted the classified Blue Book
 >>stuff.

 >>Sheehan may address some of these questions in the couple
 >>occasions when he talks on UFOs in the next couple weeks.

 >Grant,

 >I have a question for Sheehan. What and or when was the date of
 >the briefing to JPL? One would think there would be JPL records
 >which indicate a briefing from Sheehan happened, which would
 >lead further creedence to his story.

Robert

I have forwarded the question to Don Waldrop, at MUFON-LA who
will see Danny Sheehan next weekend in Los Angeles.


Grant









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.] - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:12:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:10:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.] - Rudiak


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:43:46 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.]
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:15:03 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 06:05:06 EDT
 >>>Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:06:00 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Sparks

 >>>Neither one claimed to have been first-hand witnesses of alleged
 >>>alien artifacts or bodies

 >>Not necessarily. If you believe Whitley Strieber, he spoke to
 >>Sarbacher shortly before his death in 1986 (see his book
 >>"Breakthrough"). According to Strieber, 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. ...What I can be certain about is that it was not
 >>produced by an technology that we were aware of in 1947, or
 >>now."

 >Well, again, not necessarily. The problem here is that Strieber,
 >in his 1987 best seller Communion wrote that Sarbacher had died
 >"a few days before I became aware of his letter." Strieber
 >continued that he had unable to personally interview him because
 >of that. Strieber didn't mention where that last interview was
 >conducted and who had conducted it.

 >And, all of this came out because William Steinman was
 >attempting to verify a UFO crash near Aztec, New Mexico in 1948.
 >So, while almost everyone has suggested that the Sarbacher
 >material was about the Roswell crash, Steinman interpreted it
 >differently and we are left with a slight area of confusion.

 >So, I'm not sure that the Strieber material does anything to
 >corroborate anything. We seem to have two statements that would
 >be mutually exclusive.

Kevin, I have just e-mailed Whitley Strieber and hopefully he
will clarify this for us, namely did he speak to Sarbacher or
didn't he?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                 Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 13 Jul 2001 19:17:27 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:16:12 -0400
Subject: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence


As Danny Sheehan prepares to address the MUFON Symposium in Los
Angeles later this month, I present some words spoken by Sheehan
during an interview with Jeff Rense in July 2000.

The following is the main part of Sheehan's reply to a Rense
suggestion that Sheehan put up on Rense's web site, the symbols
Sheehan claimed to have traced off a photograph of a crashed
flying saucer. The photograph was on one of the microfilms
Sheehan maintains that he reviewed at the Library of Congress
(Madison Building) in 1977.


"Here's what I propose. What we need to do is we need to go
forward and participate in this type of tribunal together.
(Sheehan proposed an evidential tribunal - effectively putting
the United States government, or  controlling UFO entity , on
trial at Olympia Washington where the famous first 1947 Kenneth
Arnold sighting took place)"

"What we do is present this in that place in a neutral forum,
because one of my experiences has been, in the short amount of
time that I have worked with this particular part of the public
interest community, that there is a history of people getting
into these kind of competitive arguments with each other, about
the legitimacy of these things. One group sponsors them, and the
other group feels that it is necessary to denigrate them and
attack them . . . "

"We (Christic Institute), as sort of the preeminent legal team
of our whole generation, can evaluate the witnesses. I'm not
going to be standing there in front of a 12 person jury with
some story like 'my cousin's brother talked to some truck driver
at the station and this is what he said.....'."

"You're going to be up against Jerry Spense (prominent trial
lawyer who Sheehan proposed might act as counsel for the other
side). He's going to chew your shorts off. We have to have the
very best. We have to have the prime evidence. We have to
present it in the best possible way. We need to have it
televised, and on live radio all across the country. There's
people who are going to jump all over this....."









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 14

             'Russian Crop Circles Show Aliens Returned' - TASS

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:45:09 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:18:52 -0400
Subject: 'Russian Crop Circles Show Aliens Returned' - TASS


Russian crop circles show aliens returned - Tass


MOSCOW, July 13 (Reuters) - Russian officials said on Friday
that strange circles found in a remote southern field showed
aliens had returned to collect Earth soil, four years after
first dropping by, Itar-Tass news agency reported.

The five concentric circles of wheat, flattened in a clockwise
direction, were discovered in a field outside Maikop in the
Krasnodar region. The ears of the wheat were undamaged.

Tass said similar circles had appeared four years ago.

"Officials of the region's Emergency Situations Department say
this suggests the beings had come back for more soil samples,"
Tass said.

Britain witnessed a spate of so-called crop circles in the late
1990s, most of which were attributed to pranksters.

08:07 07-13-01

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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:50:00 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:50:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:03:45 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:04:45 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:06:05 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:37:20 EDT
 >>>Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:36:43 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

 >>>Thank you for explaining in detail many of the reasons that
 >>>people report the Planet Venus as a UFO.

 >>You're a bit confused Bob. I was explaining the many reasons why
 >>several policeman would _not_ think Venus was a large,
 >>disk-shaped or oval object with a dark dome on top, riding on an
 >>ice-cream cone shaped glow of light, at times being blindingly
 >>bright and lighting up the ground, flying over their heads, and
 >>appearing in the west when Venus was in the east.

 >You can throw out all kind of theoretical BS you want

Whenever Bob Young's pet debunking theories get challenged by a
little factual reality check, he calls it "theoretical BS." On
the other hand, when Bob Young speculates wildly in order to
arrive at UFO "explanations", I guess it isn't "theoretical BS"
but just plain common sense, proof positive, or some such thing.
It's the debunker double standard at work again.

Just to refresh people's memories, it was Bob Young who
originally wrote that the 1966 Ravenna, Ohio case was fully
explained by "Venus" being distorted by "astigmatism" into a
disk-shape and that the bright cone of light some of the
witnesses said the object seemed to ride on was somehow caused
by diffraction of "Venus" through the witnesses' "eyelashes."

Now if that isn't "theoretical BS", I don't know what is.

 >as to why
 >somebody could never be fooled about your favorite subject,
 >saucers with little green men, but consider this:

Where did I ever use the phrase "saucers with little green men"
Bob? This seems to be a favorite debunking phrase of yours, but
it is just more typical debunker propaganda talk. Throwing the
extraneous "little green men" part in is always a deliberate
attempt to ridicule the topic.

Could you tell us what part of the Ravenna case ever mentions
little entities, green or otherwise? Why don't we just stick to
what the various policemen actually reported, which in several
cases was a large, intensely bright object.

 >Condon Report Case #37, wherein a group of police officers made
 >the same kind of mistakes in perception and interpretation made
 >by officer Spaur and his associates with Venus.

Notice how Bob Young begs the question here. He assumes his
"explanation" of the Ravenna case is necessarily the correct
one. Thus it was "Venus" misperceived and misinterpretated by
all the policemen. Of course, the way he arrives at this
conclusion was by assuming to begin with that it was Venus
misperceived and misinterpretated by all the policemen. In other
words, his premise and conclusion are one and the same.

Furthermore, he assumes as another premise, that what happened in the next
case from 1967 is identical to what happened at Ravenna, and vice versa.
Even if we assume that _everything_ in the next case is explained by
misperception of "Venus", does that necessarily carry back and explain
Ravenna?

There are many logical fallacies here in his argument, not that
I suspect Bob Young cares. To him, it's just more "theoretical
BS."

 >Hynek concurred that this was indeed Venus when he wrote, "It
 >is a fantastic example of how persuasive the planet Venus can be
 >as a nonscreened UFO. Police officers in 11 counties were
 >"taken in" by this planet." (The UFO experience, p. 205)

Well, I checked, and Bob Young at least got the quote correct.
In all fairness, if Bob wants to cite Hynek as support for his
position, shouldn't he also mention Hynek's lengthy discussion
of the Ravenna case on pages 100-108, with Hynek weighing in on
page 107 that it was a "strong unidentified" and angrily
denouncing Blue Book's "satellite and Venus" explanation.
Obviously Hynek did not think the two cases were anywhere near
equivalent. As usual, Bob is highly selective in what he chooses
to report. We have often seen this behavior before.

Another point made by Hynek immediately before the quote given
by Bob Young was that if the witnesses report seeing the same
UFO in the same part of the sky on multiple days, then there is
a very good chance the explanation is either ordinary aircraft
or something astronomical. (That certainly was not the case for
Ravenna, which completely unlike the case below, occurred on
only one morning, not over multiple days.)

In fact, in my previous post, I noted an anecdote by the
Lorenzen's in one of their books describing a clear
misidentification of Venus as a UFO. An obviously naive couple
told them that a bright UFO appeared at the same part of the sky
every evening. When the Lorenzen's went up to check it out, it
was clearly just Venus.

Bob Young falsely claims below that I never think Venus is
mistaken for a UFO. My actual position is that one shouldn't
assume Venus is the explanation just because it happens to be in
the sky, when other aspects of the case obviously cannot be
explained by waving one's hands and chanting "Venus." That is
certainly also one of Hynek's points when he discusses the
Ravenna case.

In the second case below, described in the Condon report, the
sightings were over several days and involved multiple witnesses
and reports. In most of these reports (but not all) the
witnesses reported small star-like objects in the vicinity of
Venus and Jupiter.

In these particular reports, the sightings very likely were of
Venus and Jupiter. But the logical fallacy of Bob Young, the
Condon people, and even Hynek is therefore assuming that ALL the
reports were necessarily explained by Venus/Jupiter. However,
some of the officers' reports clearly are not so easily
explainable as sightings of planets, particularly the first
ground report on the first night, given immediately before,
which does have some similarities to the Ravenna case.

 >Some of the officers' descriptions:

 >"We followed the object, which was then a bright red,
 >football-shaped light, for about eight miles out into the
 >country. It appeared to be as big as the moon in the sky."

The full moon was in the sky, BTW; for ready comparison. Venus,
which is yellowish-white in color, I have never seen with a
reddish tint to it, much less looking bright red, football
shaped, and as big as the moon. So were the policmen necessarily
describing Venus, or something else?

Of course, Bob Young immediately assumes as his premise that the
policemen _must_ somehow have mentally distorted Venus into all
of the above, because some other policemen on later nights
probably did later mistake Venus/Jupiter for the initially
reported UFO.

 >How can something that is a point of light be "football
shaped"? >Not possible, according to you, when it is Venus
instead of an

Note the usual Bob Young circular reasoning at work. His premise
is that it was _necessarily_ Venus being described, followed by
his conclusion that the policemen therefore badly misperceived
Venus.

Let's continue with this initial sighting as reported in Condon.
Unfortunately, the case report in Condon is not well written. It
doesn't even tell us where this all occurred. It refers to
reports from policemen from 12 different towns over 4 days, but
usually does not give dates or times, or even provide a simple
map or table that would have put the various sightings and
sometimes-reported directions into some sort of context.

(It later turns out that the main "town A" referred to in the
report was Millidgeville, Georgia, near Macon. Investigator Roy
Craig in his debunking book, "UFOs, An Insider's View of the
Official Quest for Evidence," states they left this information
out of their report so as not to locally embarrass the witnesses
for misidentifying Venus. This is not a good rationalization for
a shoddy case report which left out many important details
needed to properly evaluate the conclusions reached by the
investigators. This could still have been easily done without
compromising the identity of the witnesses.)

The case report continues:

"We lost sight of it, and headed back into town. The object,
whatever, it was, caught up with us as we approached the city
limits. The other officer started making a pretty scared sound
and pointing out behind us. That is when I turned around and saw
it."

  [A later question established that the car was travelling
  westward at this point, therefore the object behind them was
  eastward. Venus and Jupiter were indeed almost due east. The
  report said they first caught sight of the object at 4:36 am,
  EDT, so by this time in the event it was roughly 5:00 am. At
  that time, Venus was at about 10 degrees above the horizon and
  Jupiter 20 degrees. Both were at azimuth 89 degrees. (Without a
  precise time, one can't be more specific here.)]

"It lit the police car enough inside to make the hands on your
wristwatch visible. The whole surroundings were lit up."
[Crucial detail: How exactly does "Venus" light up the
surroundings? There was nearly a full moon out that could light
the ground, but was this witness describing something much
brighter than the ambient moonlit landscape?]

"I radioed in that we were being followed by a flying object. I
didn't know what it was, but it was following us. I could see
the object in the rear-view mirror, but when we stopped the car
and I got out, it veared away and disappeared behind the trees."
[The ever maneuverable and elusive planet Venus. Venus, of
course, should have remained stationary in the sky, If he could
see it in his rear view, when he stepped out of the car, it
should still have been there.]

"After we returned to town and got a third officer to come out
with us, the object had started climbing." [Unfortunately
doesn't describe the period of time over which the climb
occurred, which is an important piece of information that should
have been determined by the investigators.]

We observed the object for about 20 minutes. It changed from
bright red to orange, then to real white looking. The object
then appeared to change its shape from round to the shape of a
giant four-leaf clover. " [If this was "Venus" rising in the
morning sky then any atomospheric distortion of shape should
have decreased, not increased as it got higher. However, it is
conceivable that the officers were perhaps sighting Venus here.
But this does not explain the earlier part of the sighting where
there is he description of an oval object of very large size and
bright enough to light up the surroundings.]

"Our radio operator contacted the officers in Town C. In a few
minutes, they radioed back, and said they had the object in
sight. It was to the east of us, apparently hovering over Town
B. From Town C, it was _to the west_ and appeared to be between
town A and Town B. We had it between the two of us."

[Obviously "Venus" cannot simultaneously appear to be both in
the east and west, though this doesn't seem to bother Bob Young
a wit, judging by his previous ignoring of such "Venus"
direction anomalies in the Ravenna case. It also doesn't seem to
bother the Condon investigators. All they noted later in the
report is that the bright star Capella "could be seen to the
west (northwest) during the early morning hours, implying that
some sightings to the west might also be explained by Capella.

Please note the inexactness of the position they attribute to
Capella. Could it appear to be in the "west" and perhaps explain
what the policmen in town C saw to the west? We will never know
for sure, because the investigators didn't nail down the time or
tell us where towns A,B, and C where relative to one another, or
exactly where the various policemen were supposed to be, all
critical pieces of information. As best as can be determined
from the little information they did give us, this dual
direction sighting of the object probably took place roughly
between 5:30 and 6:15 am .

Now we come to Capella's position and why they might choose not
to be very precise about where it actually was at the time.
Capella was somewhere between about 70 and 75 degrees up in the
northwestern sky, i.e., it was very close to the zenith. One
would have to crane one's head very sharply up to observe it.
Objects this high up in the sky do not usually provoke a sense
of clear direction, as they do when they are much lower in the
sky. It is therefore highly questionable that Capella would be
the object reported by the officers in town C as being to the
"west" of them and appearing to be between towns A & B. For sure
it couldn't be "Venus" that they were reporting in the west.

In his book, Craig further misrepresented some of the data. He
wrote, "As our pointed questions were answered, certain
uniformities developed. The object was _always_ seen near the
eastern horizon."

This statement by Craig is obviously completely false, not only
for the above report of the object being in the west (which they
further try to attribute to Capella, which was near the zenith,
nowhere near the "horizon.") Furthermore, in their Condon
report, they listed a whole section of short "Additional
Reports", with several of the reported directions incompatible
with an object near the eastern horizon, e.g.. "Town H: Police
Department reported an object described as above traveling
west."]

Back to the first reported sighting:

"I started back into town, and then is when it started moving
_south_ at a very high rate of speed."

[Unfortunately, again the case report is sloppy in its
investigation. The direction in which the policemen were driving
is not nailed down, though it was established they were earlier
driving back to town in an westerly direction. If they were
continuing in this direction, then "Venus" should have remained
directly in back of them instead of "moving south at a very high
rate of speed."

If instead, they were perhaps moving south, then a distant
stationary object like Venus might indeed give the illusion of
moving to the south as well. However, it would appear to be
moving at the same speed as their car, or "pacing" their
position, because its direction in the sky would not change. It
would not appear to be moving south "at a very high rate of
speed."

Similarly, if they were moving north, Venus might appear to pace
them in a northerly direction. It would not appear to be taking
off to the south.

The Condon investigators (Craig and Ahrens) in their conclusion
try to attribute the "_appearance_ of motion of a stationary
distant" to a variety of causes, "particularly that caused by
the motion of the observer." This is just handwaving, because it
doesn't readily explain what this officer reported. Perhaps
proper "pointed questioning" of the officer would have provided
details, like directions or apparent speed, that would have
clarified the matter, but this seemingly wasn't done.]

"(QUESTION: You said earlier that it crossed over the top of the
police car. Did it get directly overhead?) No, sir, I didn't
mean it came directly over the car. It came over the wooded
area, over the top of the trees, and appeared right behind the
car. I would say it was maybe 500 feet behind us and maybe 500
to 600 feet high, roughly guessing. When I did stop the car and
jump out, I did see it when it went back. (??)"

[Again, important case details are left out in their "pointed
questioning" of the witnesses. What was the actual elevation
angle of the object? The officer's earlier description of
crossing over the car" implied a high angle, not "Venus" which
was down "near the horizon" at an angle of maybe 10-15 degrees
(again, the time of this part of the sighting isn't clarified).
The question did establish that the object didn't actually pass
over the car, but doesn't provide an answer for why the officer
seemed to have an overall impression of a high angle. If we take
the policemen's distance estimates literally, he is describing
something at an angle of 45+ degrees. If we try to use the
description of it appearing "over the top of the trees", we
would need to know how tall the trees were and how far away he
was. At the very least, they should have had the witness raise
his arm into the air and try to estimate the elevation angle by
pointing. If he raised his arm to a high angle, then it would be
very unlikely that this was Venus.]

"(QUESTION: In what manner did the object finally disappear the
first night that you saw it?) We watched it until it climbed and
took a position in the sky. It climbed to such a height that it
appeared to be a star, and that is where it was hanging when I
got off duty at 7 o'clock and went home. It was still visible
and looking like a star at that time."

[Again, the direction and elevation isn't nailed down nor what
the officer meant by "it climbed and took a position in the
sky." Was this a rapid event, or something that took place over
a prolonged period of time? Was a second bright light reported
above the first? Remember Jupiter was almost directly above
Venus by 10 degrees, At 7:00 am, Venus was at an elevation of
about 35 degrees and Jupiter 45 degrees in the ESE sky. Although
the case report fails to mention it, sunrise was at about 7:45,
so both Venus and Jupiter should both have remained easily
visible in the twilight. But the policeman never mentions
another bright light above the first one at any time in all the
questioning.

Note the officer now reporting that the object clearly looked
like a star at this point, whereas at the very beginning of
sighting, he reported it as oval-shaped and as big as the moon,
and, of course, lighting up the ground.

My impression of the report here is that the officer could have
been reporting Venus. But "Venus" doesn't so easily explain
earlier descriptions of the object, particularly the shape, size
and brightness.

Craig in his book uses a lot of pseudopsychological gibberish to
try to explain some of these things. E.g. he writes:

"The brilliance of Venus is also unbelievable to some
observers."

Even if we accept this statement of Craig unquestioningly, how
does this explain the object appearing to be the size of the
moon or lighting up the ground? As to the size conundrum, Craig
throws out the following nonsensical "explanation":

"Most people have noticed that the moon looks bigger when it is
close to the horizon than when it is high in the sky. This is a
purely psychological effect. M. Minnaert, in his classic
treatise 'The Nature of Light and Colour in the Open Air"
claimed that, to the average observer, the moon near the horizon
appears two and a half times as large in diameter as it does
when high in the sky. The same psychological factors would cause
Venus to appear bigger near the horizon, and accounts for some
exaggerated size estimates."

So what's wrong with this argument? The problem is the moon is a
large resolvable shape, whereas the planets and stars are not.
They are physically points of light to our visual systems. Our
perceptual systems can resize a resolvable shape, but not a
point. That's one reason why it's called the "Moon illusion" and
not the "Venus illusion". As far as I know, there is nothing in
the psychological literature about the stars or planets being
similarly enlarged in size.

Even if one assumes that a point source of light could be
psychological enlarged a few times, it could hardly be blown up
nearly two orders of magnitude to appear as large as the moon.

Craig is talking way out of his field of expertise (Craig was
trained as a physical chemist). If one didn't know better, it
sounds like he's providing a "scientific" explanation here. But
to anybody who knows anything about the subject matter, it is
pseudoscientific snake oil. Honestly, has anybody out there
looked at Venus near the horizon and said to themselves, "Gee,
that looks as big as the moon!"

 >ET ship. "It can't be, therefore it isn't" is something that is
 >often thrown at skeptics, but it seems to suit believers just as
 >well.

 >Another account by the policemen in Case 37, noted by Hynek,

No Bob, not noted by Hynek, but by the Condon people.

 >"It was a good distance in front of us, pulling away, so we turned
 >around to come back to town. The object turned on us and
 >followed. It gained on us and was going about 75 mph. After the
 >object caught up with us, it pulled into the sky, emitting a
 >beam of bluish light that illuminated the roadway."

 >How can Venus illuminate the roadway (with a beam yet) even
 >though it was magnitude -4? Can't happen, according to David Rudiak.

Again notice Bob Young's circular reasoning. The premise, "It
had to be Venus" yields the conclusion he desires, "People can
even misperceive Venus illuminating roadways with a beam."

This is another interesting case report, but the details never
get properly explored.

The above quote is about the only description in the Condon
report. The only other thing said about this was, "Another [town
E] patrolman there said he chased a ball of light down a road
just outside [town E], The object was traveling above tree-top
level."

Some "pointed questioning" would have helped clarify matters.
E.g., what direction was the object? Was it in the east? Was
there another bright object above it? What time was it? What
exactly was meant by "tree top level?" Why was the patrolman
under the impression that object "pulled away" and then later
"gained on us?" Did it appear to change in size and brightness?
What exactly did he mean when he said when it "caught up with
us, it pulled into the sky?" Did it rapidly shoot up in the sky,
or did this happen over a prolonged period, like Venus slowly
rising? Could the officer elaborate on the "bluish beam?" How
bright was it? How narrow was it? Was he sure it illuminated the
roadway? Could it have been the moon illuminating the ground
instead?

Without details like this, it's premature to reach the
conclusion that the officer observed "Venus" and was wildly
deluded into thinking he had seen a beam illuminating the
roadway.

 >The answer is that you take what you know about the human eye
 >and then - attach a human brain which is perhaps confused, maybe
 >scared, but filled with years of cultural conditioning regarding
 >little grey men zooming all around in 50 foot wide spaceships
 >and maybe you'll get the answer.

 >Or maybe not.

And now it's a psychosocial explanation instead of Bob Young's
earlier "astigmatism" and "eyelashes." Bob Young's "little green
men" has also changed color and become "little grey men."

If one wants to advance "psychological explanations," one should
also look at the state of mind of the investigators as well as
the witnesses. Go to the Craig book, and Craig explains the
condition in which he and Ahrens arrived at the site: "Because
of poor plane connections to the distant rural community [we
spent] the entire night on short flights to intervening cities
and long waits for the next flights, [arriving] at the Macon
airport at 7 AM, somewhat tired and hungry."

Well, I'll say! Being up all night does not exactly sharpen the
mind. The next night it rained and they said they welcomed the
chance to sleep instead of rising early in the morning to look
for the "UFO." Then came this admission: "Having not had much a
chance the previous night or _during the past couple of days_,
the sleep was indeed welcome.

In other words, even before they left and spent all night on
plane flights, they were already exhausted from lack of sleep.
These guys arrived to investigate thoroughly sleep deprived.

They spent the morning at the FAA air traffic control room
listening to the tape recorded conversation between the radar
operator and the pilot giving chase to the UFO on one night.
They also questioned the radar operator.

They didn't get around to questioning any of the policemen until
that afternoon. "We spent the major portion of the afternoon
talking with police officers who had chased the UFO. It was
described as a bright red, football-shaped, moon-sized light
"... etc., etc., in other words, the first case above, which did
have a fair amount of detail to it."

They questioned a few more officers. By the end of the
afternoon, the two obviously exhausted men seem to have decided
everything could be explained by Venus. The deterioration in the
details of the various case reports in the Condon report seems
to parallel the deterioration of their physical and mental
condition as the day wore on. The plane chase and radar
investigation received a lot of attention, as did the first
chase detailed above. After that, all the other reports steadily
tapered off in detail. Only two other observations received much
attention in the final write-up. By the time they got to the
"blue beam on the roadway" case, nothing seems to have been
asked at all to clarify the policeman's report.

These are not exactly ideal conditions under which to conduct an
investigation. It looks to me like the two men in their
exhausted mental state were not conducting the thorough
investigation needed here, and it shows in the poor write-up.
They settled on Venus and Jupiter early on as explaining
everything before before they had completely questioned
everybody, and then seem to have glossed over all the details
that might not support their conclusion (some of them noted
above in my comments).

Ironically, Craig and Ahrens felt that "sleepiness and fatigue
also could have been significant factors" by overworked
policemen working double shifts. However, their own "sleepiness
and fatigue" doesn't enter into the discussion. Do you suppose
these "psychological factors" (not to mention Craig's very
obvious hostility to the whole subject) might have played a part
in the direction and thoroughness of their investigation?

(The fact that many of the cases in the Condon report were not
well-investigated is not exactly news to most people in this
group.)

Now having said all that, I think they were probably right that
a lot of these sightings in Georgia over a period of four days
could probably be properly explained as various people mistaking
Venus and Jupiter for UFOs. I'm just not convinced that
_everything_ here can be well-explained away this way. There
could have been a genuine UFO sighting or two, particularly the
first night, with a lot of noise generated by misidentifications
after that.

Ravenna is an entirely difference case with many different case
details, such as being confined to only one morning. Things
should always be evaluated on a case by case basis. Just because
some sightings have viable astronomical explanations such as
Venus, doesn't mean _all_ the sightings do. It's a logical
fallacy to think otherwise.

 >If you do not believe that Venus is a major cause of UFO
 >reports, then you probably do not believe that there are any
 >IFOs, either.

 >If you really believe that there are such things as IFOs, please
 >cite the largest categories of IFOs, and then the major source
 >of IFOs in these subgroups.

Gee Bob, I never said people didn't mistake Venus for UFOs. I
even gave a very clear example from the Lorenzens in previous
post. What I don't approve of is assuming that something
_necessarily_ has to be an "IFO" because some skepto-bunker
"investigator" like you thinks he knows for certain that flying
saucers can't exist. That's when Venus gets used as the
"explanation" even when the case evidence doesn't support such a
conclusion. There are even examples where debunkers have used
Venus to explain away UFO cases when it wasn't even in the sky.
Do you suppose what debunkers believe might have something to do
with them proposing the impossible?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                 Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Strieber Replies

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 02:24:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:58:13 -0400
Subject: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Strieber Replies


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:12:39 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.]
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:43:46 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [Pt. 1.]
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>So, I'm not sure that the Strieber material does anything to
 >>corroborate anything. We seem to have two statements that would
 >>be mutually exclusive.

 >Kevin, I have just e-mailed Whitley Strieber and hopefully he will clarify
 >this for us, namely did he speak to Sarbacher or didn't he?

 >David Rudiak

I just received this e-mail back from Whitley Strieber only
about an hour and a half after I sent mine. Obviously it was
written back in haste and not proof-read. No cheap shots,
please, about his repeated misspellings of Sarbacher's name.

Basically Strieber states that he did speak to somebody at the
phone number provided by either Stanton Friedman or Bill Moore,
but he wasn't sure then and isn't sure now that it necessarily
was Sarbacher (partly because he almost immediately learned that
Sarbacher was dead). The "quote" from "Sarbacher" reported in
'Breakthrough' was to the best of his memory of what he was told
over the phone. Strieber when he wrote 'Breakthrough' now felt
that he probably had spoken to Sarbacher, but deleted this
material from the earlier 'Communion' because at that time he
had serious doubts if it was Sarbacher.

This is me paraphrasing Strieber, but you can read it for
yourself.

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

Subj:  Re: Dr. Robert Sarbacher
Date:  01-07-13 23:43:58 EDT
From:  wstrieber@hotmail.com (W Strieber)
To:    DRudiak@aol.com

I spoke to somebody who claimed to be Sauerbacher. The result of
the call was that I sent him a long and quite personal letter by
overnight express. I found out he was dead from the express
agent, who telephoned me. I called Saurbacher again, and was
told the same thing by the person who answered the phone. My
letter was never returned to me.

Subsequently, I came to think that he was already dead when the
call took place, so I didn't know who had gotten hold of the
letter. In my opinion then, this individual was either just
having me on, or intended to elicit the letter and then steal
it. I changed Communion at the last minute to take out the
material about Sauerbacher, because I had come to think I'd been
had in some way, and I was afraid. I was just then realizing
that there was a very active clandestine presence involved in
the UFO business, and rather desperately wishing that I could
stop the publication of Communion altogether.

As I recall, I got Sauerbacher's contact information from
Stanton Friedman, or maybe Bill Moore.

The contradiction between the two books comes from the fact that
my initial fear and suspicion had changed to anger by the time I
wrote Breakthrough. By then I had decided that maybe I actually
had talked to Sauerbacher, so I repeated the conversation in
part, as I remembered it. I should have explained this in more
detail in Breakthrough. In any case, if I did talk to him, it
must have been almost the day he died.

I have no documentation to support what he said to me, and it's
not really relevant unless somebody were to produce some kind of
material that fits the description I recall being given, or if
any of Saurbacher's papers were found and something about some
such material was mentioned.

I'm sorry if the contradiction between my books has caused
dissatisfaction.

Whitley Strieber

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










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                  Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 06:51:27 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:09:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Bourdais


To Richard and all,

I am answering your following message, on this thread, that you
put in another thread because you had erased my previous
message.

So, you wrote:

 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report'
 >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:10:47 -0000

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:32:45 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report'
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >I accidentally erased your other posting in regard to Sheehan's
 >story, but this one will do to make the same point. This
 >constantly repeated statement that NICAP was "infiltrated" in
 >the 1950s is 99% myth and 1% unimportant fact. I know because I
 >was there, and I am tired of hearing this myth constantly

 >Something very similar applies to Sheehan's story (and that's
 >all it is so far). Grant Cameron keeps circulating it, and when
 >people raise serious questions about its validity, he says "ask
 >Sheehan." Cameron is the one circulating the story and insisting
 >that we take it seriously, so it is up to him to check on its
 >obvious credibility problems. It is not up to us to try to prove
 >a negative. Furthermore, that shifts the burden of proof to us,
 >and we don't have the time or interest to chase down every
 >unsubstantiated claim. He is the advocate.

 >The bottom line is this. Sheehan's story, if true, would easily
 >blow the lid off any U.S. cover-up, if he is a credible witness.
 >And if he really did the things he claims to have done, he
 >should have ample documentation of it that he could easily
 >produce: Contracts, letters, pay records, tax forms.
 >Documentation of briefings to JPL and the like should be easy to
 >locate.

I understand better your global reaction of suspicion, in the
absence of any documented, written proof of his story.

Considering the situation now, and this already long exchange on
the list, it seems rather urgent for Daniel Sheehan to produce
such documents, about at least some parts of his testimony.

He should have documents at least on his contacts with the
Vatican, and on his lecture at JPL.

I wonder, though, if such documents, concerning very private,
confidential actions, can be made public from a legal point of
view. Anyone can answer that

Now, this being said, I feel that another global appreciation
may be made here.

It is the same problem as the critic which has been raised
against the idea that President Carter did not act properly if
he tried to get information on UFOs in a very indirect, clumsy
way, by asking help from the the CRS, an unimportant service of
Congress.

Perhaps it was purposedly a discret inquiry, in order to avoid
direct conflict with the CIA and Pentagon? If Carter sensed a
very strong resistance in front of him, it may well have been
his best choice.

He was not a very 'strong' President. Even a strong President
like Eisenhower had warned publicly against the excessive power
of the "military-industrial complex".

And, as Grant Cameron has pointed out here, the GAO had very
serious problems as well with its Roswell inquiry. And even DCI
James Woolsey seems to have had problems too!

Now, let's consider the situation of Daniel Sheehan.

Suppose his story is true (regardless of minor mistakes).
Suppose that the same thing would have happened to you, that you
would have seen very hot documents on UFO secrets, but for the
eyes only, and on the occasion of a very confidential inquiry.
What could you do? You would have no written proof. The only
person who could confirm your screening of these documents
remains, and probably will remain silent.

On that weak basis, Sheehan decides to nevertheless speak out.
He cannot do it on a very important scale such as a legal action
or interview in important media: he would not be credible. So,
he opts for limited actions, speaking at UFO conferences. But he
also speaks at Dr Greer's press conference in Washington,
together with 19 other witnesses. Please note that, like all
others, he declares that he is ready to speak at a Congressional
Hearing.

That's already an escalation, which is not without risk.

If Marcia Smith denies his story, he may look very bad.

By the way, if the story is true, can Marcia Smith deny it? It
would be a public lie, with possible legal consequences later.

Perhaps Sheehan does have documents, at least on certain aspects
of his claims (like his lecture at JPL), but prefers to keep
them for the time being, for further action?

A question of tactics for a good attorney.

But, as it stands now, with a hot debate on this List, I think
he should produce something now. I agree with you on that.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:24:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:28:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:55:57 -0700

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:16:27 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle
 >>>Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 10:17:19 -0700

 >>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com


Ed, List, all -

 >>You've named a couple of them. Do I understand, from your
 >>note here that you have actually spoken to this mythical
 >>cameraman (and yes, I used the word mythical on purpose)?

 >Kevin,

 >No, I have not spoken to the cameraman but I have communicated
 >with him through Ray while I was working with the MP. Ray was
 >interested in the MP's story because he thought the MP might be
 >verification of the cameraman's story. The cameraman asked the
 >MP several questions and because of the answers, we determined
 >that they were players in two separate ballgames. I found the
 >cameraman's questions helped my investigation and showed me that
 >he's still participating in some fashion.

I think the real point is that you have not spoken to the
cameraman at all. I too, have passed a list of questions on to
the cameraman, back in 1995, and mine haven't been answered.
Maybe they were a little tougher.

And, if I understand what you say, the MP didn't confirm the
cameraman's story, so you have decided that he was involved in a
different recovery of an alien craft.

<snip>

 >>The cameraman's explanations as to how he ended up with the film
 >>do not make any sense. It was in violation of the protocols and
 >>there was no reason for those protocols to have been suspended.

 >There must have been some reason; secrecy perhaps. I agree with
 >Grant. Folks in power do exactly as they damn well please. Yes
 >the cameraman's story is outrageous on the face of it (but too
 >surreal for Ray to invent).

Sorry, but the cameraman was not one of those in power, but one
of the flunkies who was dispatched to take pictures. When
protocols are violated, normally it is red tape rather than
protocols that deal with highly classified materials. In this
case, there is no reason for the protocols to be violated, so
not only do we have something that is far from the established
procedure, we have no reason for that procedure to be rejected.
It's a double problem.

 >We have the video footage and we know it came from very old film
 >and we know who transferred it from raw footage to video. Ray
 >bought the footage from someone. We know he paid 100 grand for
 >it and that Volker is happy with his purchase. The cameraman may
 >be a complicated myth, (a Santilli pipedream) but you still have
 >to account for the footage. And if not the cameraman then who
 >did create the footage. Ray?

But the film (or rather the video tape) can be explained without
the cameraman. It is a hoax. It was invented. From what you have
said, Santilli did not have the technical expertise to fake it,
but he did have the knowledge to turn the tent footage over to
someone else who apparently did have such expertise. We now
know, thanks in no small part to the research of Philip Mantle
and his colleagues, that the tent footage is a hoax. That
certainly doesn't bode well for the other footage that has been
offered, without provenance, by Santilli.

 >>His tale of a trip from Washington to Wright Field to Roswell
 >>and then a car trip over to Socorro makes no sense. Why not fly
 >>right into either Albuquerque or Alamogordo and make a much
 >>easier car trip down to Socorro?

 >Not at all. Maybe now but then the trip was about the same give
 >or take a half hour or so. Albuquerque was not much of a town in
 >1947.

 >I lived there, on and off from 1957 to 1965 and the roads were
 >not that great even then. I would say that the trip, time wise,
 >would be about the same because on the drive from Albuquerque to
 >Socorro, there are many little towns to pass through and much
 >agricultural traffic which slows everything. I drove the road on
 >mzany occasions before the freeway was constructed and know it's
 >not an easy drive. There are no significant towns between
 >Roswell and Socorro and the road is straight most of the way so
 >all in all I think it would have been much easier from Roswell.

I have driven from Albuquerque to Socorro and from Roswell to
Socorro, and the drive from Roswell is much worse. I have a map
made by the state of New Mexico in 1947. It shows that the
highway from Albuquerque to Socorro is primary highway,
obviously two lanes, and is paved the whole way. According to
the map, it is just under 80 miles from Albuquerque to Socorro.

Roswell requires a drive that is on a combination of paved,
gravel and graded roads. In other words, in some places the road
was little more than a track plowed through the high desert.
Even today, some of that road, while paved with blacktop, is
narrow and has no shoulders. And, according to the map, it is
nearly 160 miles from Roswell to Socorro, or twice as far.

This doesn't even consider the fact that in 1947, Roswell was a
SAC base and Albuquerque was an AMC base. Wright Field, where
the cameraman said they went first is also an AMC base. While it
is certainly true that AMC aircraft could, and did, land at SAC
bases, it makes more sense from them to fly into the AMC base
because it was only half as far from the airfield to Socorro.

So, the maps of 1947, and the roads of 1947, suggest that it
wouldn't have been easier to fly into Roswell, but would have
been much more difficult. And, you would have to travel, over
basically unimproved tracks for part of the distance that was
twice as far.

 >>Why didn't he use color film
 >>for the autopsy? Especially the one in the brightly lighted
 >>room? Where was the still photographer and the stationary motion
 >>picture camera? Why weren't these protocols followed? They had
 >>time to set it up because this was what, four or five weeks
 >>after the crash?

 >I'm very familar with Longo's objections but I'm sorry I don't
 >buy into this. The cameraman shot the footage the way he was
 >instructed and developed it himself. That story hasn't changed.
 >Protocals were not followed! That's clear and no one ever said
 >they were.

They _told_ him to shoot it in black and white? For heaven's
sake, why?

And why violate the protocols? There was no reason not to use
them because they had time to set up the autopsy properly. It
wasn't something that had to be done right at this moment with
what was on hand, but something that could be planned. So, the
violation of the protocols, the failure to use color film, the
failure to have a still camera present, all suggest a hoax.

If you are going to violate the protocols, there must be a
reason to do it. If there is no compelling reason, then the
protocols would have been followed.

 >If they had been folowed we wouldn't have the
 >footage.

Which, of course, is the point. That is why there would be such
protocols in affect and why those protocols would be followed.
To prevent the unauthorized release of highly classified
materials.

 >>The cameraman's story doesn't hold water. He said that he didn't
 >>want his name known because he didn't want anyone to know he had
 >>sold the film for big money. Of course, since there was only one
 >>cameraman, according to him, the government knows who he is
 >>because there is only one. They can now arrest him on felony
 >>charges, not the least of which is income tax evasion. No matter
 >>how careful you are with his name, the government has records
 >>and can learn who this was. Then, since he has not paid taxes on
 >>the money, and because he was selling, in essence, stolen
 >>property, and, since he was in violation of various laws that
 >>protect classified material (even if that material is over 50
 >>years old), they could find him and arrest him. These records
 >>are in surprisingly good and complete shape. We've had trouble
 >>prying the records out of the government's hands, but the
 >>records have been there. So, there really is no way for this man
 >>to have held the film, sold it, and not be known to the
 >>government.

 >I agree, the cameraman's identity is probably known to the
 >controllers. They have each other in a death grip that will
 >continue until the cameraman dies. The government can't possibly
 >prosecute because that would lend credence to the AA and its
 >providence.

Actually, they could prosecute him for income tax evasion
without ever getting into what he sold... all they have to do is
prove that he sold something and didn't pay the proper taxes on
it. They can say that they don't believe the film authentic, it
has already been aired on broadcast television so it would come
as no surprise to the public, and they can say they are
uninterested in its origin. All they care about is that income
tax should have been paid and it was not.

That says nothing about the authenticity of the film, it says
nothing about its provenance, they are not revealing anything
that has not already played on network television more than
once, or that hasn't been featured in any number of national
magazines and books, they can even point to those of us in the
UFO field who believe the film to be faked, and still make the
case that the cameraman not only didn't pay taxes on the sale,
but conspired with Santilli to avoid paying those taxes. The
cameraman is toast.

 >But they've probably limited the cameraman's options
 >by threatening him with grim prospects if he ever reveals
 >himself , which according to Ray, he never intended in the first
 >place. He has stated that he is ashamed of his actions and
 >doesn't want to be know as a person who would break his oath of
 >secrecy for money.

Which, of course, he is. He did break his oath for money, and if
he really exists, he is known to those who would have access to
the records. And they could get him without ever revealing a
thing about the film that wasn't already known to the public.

<snip>

 >>>Could you elaborate on this "better evidence". And while you're
 >>>at it could you give a brief description of your latest take on
 >>>the events at Roswell. With major witnesses falling by the
 >>>wayside, it seems to me that the Roswell story has become a bit
 >>>tattered and worn. The MP said the crash occurred on the 2nd and
 >>>retrieval was the 3rd and 4th of July. And what about the
 >>>Wilmots?

 >>Yes, a document, that still needs some work that specifies the
 >>July 4 date and no, I'm not referring to the nun's diary. And to
 >>a chronology based on the sightings of William Woody and some
 >>observations by MPs at the base... men whose names actually
 >>appear in the yearbook.

 >>The MP? The one whose picture is not in the Yearbook, but who
 >>remembered some of those who are? Have you retrieved his service
 >>record from the National Records Center in St. Louis? Have you
 >>seen any documentation that proves this MP was in Roswell at the
 >>right time and therefore could provide commentary on the events?

 >No I do not have anything that documents the MP's identity and I
 >realize that I can't prove his story but I do know how he
 >contacted me and I do have the information he provided. I trust
 >him and what he told me and how he told his story.

 >I deal with liars daily and think I know how to separate facts
 >from lies. The MP told me things about Roswell that were factual
 >but would not be readily known by someone who wasn't there. I
 >know his version varies from accepted opinions but the state of
 >the current Roswell witness list doesn't give one much
 >confidence in their testimonies. Are there any witnesses on
 >which most can agree? If not, I'll use my intuition and stick
 >with the MP when assessing the Roswell events.

I thought I could spot the liars too, but then along came Don
Schmitt, telling me things that seemed to be true. I even
defended him against what I thought of as unfair attacks and a
reporter's hatchet job. He took me in completely.

If you have no documentation that places this MP in Roswell, and
he doesn't show up in the Yearbook, Reunion Lists, telephone
directory, unit history, and has supplied no documents proving
that he was in Roswell at the proper time, then all you really
have is someone telling a story. The documentation is not that
difficult to obtain if the MP will cooperate and if he is who he
says he is, then he has no reason not to cooperate.

 >>The Wilmots saw a craft over Roswell on July 2 which, to my
 >>thinking, is irrelevant. You must assume that what they saw was
 >>an extraterrestrial craft and that it is the craft that crashed.
 >>If their observation was of a natural phenomena, a
 >>misidentification, or other terrestrially based object, then
 >>what they saw provides nothing in the way of information. The
 >>Wilmot sighting can be considered a red herring and of little
 >>importance in understanding the Roswell case.

 >I just don't think we can pick and choose witnesses in this
 >fashion. The Wilmonts had been looking at the new Mexico night
 >sky for many moons.


 >In NM you can see everything in the night sky and experienced
 >sky watchers as the Wilmonts were would certainly have
 >recognized "natural phenomena". The Wilmonts, highly respected
 >citizens of Roswell, must have seen something very unusual if
 >they reported it.

And how do you know that the Wilmots were experienced sky
watchers, and if they were, they couldn't be fooled by something
they thought unusual?

 >The object they described was a classic UFO: " Oval in shape
 >like two inverted saucers". It was about 1500 feet in the air
 >and going directly toward Corona at 500-600MPH.. Some red
 >herring!

So, what makes you think that this was the object that crashed?
Granted, this is how Bill Moore came up with the July 2 date,
but it really is speculative, based on the assumption that the
Wilmots didn't make a mistake about what they saw, that they did
have the date right, and it was the object that crashed. Seems
to me that there are quite a few assumptions in there.

<snip>

 >>I have taken close looks. I have provided information that you
 >>reject out of hand. You have yet to explain how the terrestrial
 >>word "video" appears on the alien I-beam. You say that it
 >>doesn't, yet almost anyone who has seen the debris footage has
 >>seen this word. Isn't it an extraordinary coincidence that
 >>"video" appears on the I-beam of the alien wreckage that is,
 >>itself on video.

 >This one example of what I consider close to a lie that you
 >perpetuate, and you could easily clear up this misperception by
 >ordering the CDs and seeing for yourself whether "VIDEO" appears
 >anywhere in the debris footage. There are some symbols/letters
 >that resemble the word video but they appear in a series of
 >letters and even then don't spell "video" or anything close.

I have seen the debris footage and I have looked at if very
carefully, and I see the word "video" in a string of other
symbols. It jumps out at you and because I can see it doesn't
make it a lie to say that I see it. And I see that you agree
that there are some symbols/letters that resemble the word
video... so how can this be "close to a lie" if you can see the
same thing yourself? And isn't that language a bit strong?

<snip>

 >>As soon as I have the information, I will forward it to you, as
 >>I have done in the past (no, not this specific information, but
 >>other information).

 >Thanks. Yes the information you sent was most helpful so let me
 >send you something in return which I think you will thank me for
 >later. You need to take a look at the AA CDs. You've changed
 >your mind on many things about Roswell. I know it won't be a
 >problem for me or anyone on the list if you decide to change
 >your mind about the AA and FW photos as well.

 >Ed

If I see compelling evidence, if better evidence is offered, if
all of it makes some sense in the context of what we know, as
opposed to what we think, or what we think we know, then yes, I
would change my mind. But, to this point, such evidence has not
been offered. All we have are new interpretations of the same
evidence that we had five or six years ago. We have no real
corroboration, verification or provenance. That's the real hang
up here.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:29:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:31:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Hatch


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >Date: 13 Jul 2001 09:32:27 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:03:45 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:06:05 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:37:20 EDT
 >>>>Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:36:43 -0400
 >>>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

 >>>>Thank you for explaining in detail many of the reasons that
 >>>>people report the Planet Venus as a UFO.

<snip>

 >>Another account by the policemen in Case 37, noted by Hynek, "It
 >>was a good distance in front of us, pulling away, so we turned
 >>around to come back to town. The object turned on us and
 >>followed. It gained on us and was going about 75 mph. After the
 >>object caught up with us, it pulled into the sky, emitting a
 >>beam of bluish light that illuminated the roadway."

 >>How can Venus illuminate the roadway (with a beam yet) even
 >>though it was magnitude -4? Can't happen, according to David
 >>Rudiak.

 >>The answer is that you take what you know about the human eye
 >>and then - attach a human brain which is perhaps confused, maybe
 >>scared, but filled with years of cultural conditioning regarding
 >>little grey men zooming all around in 50 foot wide spaceships
 >>and maybe you'll get the answer.

 >I have found the planet Venus or the star, Sirius, to be the
 >source of a few UFO reports. What I have heard from witnesses
 >was that they saw a bright light that seemed to move up and down
 >in the sky. With Sirius, it was flashing various colors. When
 >questioning the witness and asking that witness to point to the
 >location in the sky where they had seen Venus or Sirius, it was
 >easy to determine the causative agent behind the sighting.

 >Here is the rub though. The witness sees the suppossed UFO each
 >night returning to the same location. And that is exactly what
 >one would expect of a planet. I have never heard the witness
 >describe Venus as "red" or "as large as the moon" so these
 >police officers, who we expect to have some ability to observe
 >and describe their observations accurately for purposes of crime
 >reporting or suspect identification completely lose that ability
 >when it comes to seeing something unusual in the sky! This seems
 >like a stretch.

 >Even when having doubts about sighting Venus, a quick lookup in
 >Astronomy magazine or on the internet should identify its
 >location in the sky on any hour of any day of the year and the
 >experienced sky observer would not easily mistake Venus for a
 >UFO.


 >Bill Hamilton


Hello Bob, Bill and all,

Not to change this subject, although I would prefer to, Venus
looks entirely white to me. If there is anything whiter in the
sky, I'd like somebody to point it out. Any whiter, and a star
looks slightly bluish.

To further change the subject, one of my peeves is the "red"
planet Mars. I admit that on the rare occasions when Mars and
Venus are in the sky at the same time, Mars looks more red than
Venus, yes. Mars is redder than a blueberry pie as well, but it
just isn't "red" to me.

Just last nite, I looked up and saw Mars again. I had to ask
myself "Is _that_ the 'red' planet?" That's not red! This wine I
have here is so red its purple. An airliner went by with a
flashing red light on the underside. Now _that_ is red. Mars
isn't red. Mars is the poorest excuse for red I have ever seen.
If Mars is red, there's half a pig every can of Pork-and-Beans.

I wonder who came up with the 'Red Planet' moniker. If Mars is
red, then Venus is blue, and O.J. Simpson is innocent (in fact,
not just de jure).

At best, Mars is red-der than the innards of a blueberry pie,
and less red than the skin of an orange. Who comes up with this
cr@%?



Best wishes

- Larry Hatch


PS: The sauce that comes with canned lasagna is far redder than
Mars ever got, and canned lasagna is cr@% too. Ask anyone.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                    Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:33:05 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:39:10 -0400
Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Blanton


 >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:27:34 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark

 >I must have missed something. Why on earth is the CIA interested
 >in the whereabouts or otherwise of Noah's Ark? Are they covering
 >up the Tooth Fairy as well, and those secret photos of Santa's
 >Workshop in Lapland?

Hi John,

I would recommend keeping an open mind about what interests the
intelligence community. There is an author who used to make a
living writing expos books on the CIA. His latest book,
however, is a fiction called 'Kingdom Come'. I think most
Listers would enjoy reading this book since it involves an
explanation for UFOs and Crop Circles plus about all of
esoterica.

The book speculates about a group within the CIA which is
heavily compartmentalized with an agenda that will truly "blow
your mind". Just a hint, it involves the Merovingian Kings of
France (300-800 C.E.)

Anyway, if Hougan's book is simply a work of pure fiction, it's
very entertaining. If it is 'veiled-truth', then interest in the
Ark (Noah's _and_ Moses') by the Company is easily understood.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

              Re: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence -

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:00:48 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:42:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence -


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 13 Jul 2001 19:17:27 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence

 >As Danny Sheehan prepares to address the MUFON Symposium in Los
 >Angeles later this month, I present some words spoken by Sheehan
 >during an interview with Jeff Rense in July 2000.

 >The following is the main part of Sheehan's reply to a Rense
 >suggestion that Sheehan put up on Rense's web site, the symbols
 >Sheehan claimed to have traced off a photograph of a crashed
 >flying saucer. The photograph was on one of the microfilms
 >Sheehan maintains that he reviewed at the Library of Congress
 >(Madison Building) in 1977.

 >"Here's what I propose. What we need to do is we need to go
 >forward and participate in this type of tribunal together.
 >(Sheehan proposed an evidential tribunal - effectively putting
 >the United States government, or  controlling UFO entity , on
 >trial at Olympia Washington where the famous first 1947 Kenneth
 >Arnold sighting took place)"

 >"What we do is present this in that place in a neutral forum,
 >because one of my experiences has been, in the short amount of
 >time that I have worked with this particular part of the public
 >interest community, that there is a history of people getting
 >into these kind of competitive arguments with each other, about
 >the legitimacy of these things. One group sponsors them, and the
 >other group feels that it is necessary to denigrate them and
 >attack them . . . "

 >"We (Christic Institute), as sort of the preeminent legal team
 >of our whole generation, can evaluate the witnesses. I'm not
 >going to be standing there in front of a 12 person jury with
 >some story like 'my cousin's brother talked to some truck driver
 >at the station and this is what he said.....'."

 >"You're going to be up against Jerry Spense (prominent trial
 >lawyer who Sheehan proposed might act as counsel for the other
 >side). He's going to chew your shorts off. We have to have the
 >very best. We have to have the prime evidence. We have to
 >present it in the best possible way. We need to have it
 >televised, and on live radio all across the country. There's
 >people who are going to jump all over this....."

Grant,

The worst possible thing he could do, if he seriously wants to
expose a cover-up, is to put on a 'show trial' like this. That
will only give the news media a big laugh. All he needs to do,
as I've said elsewhere and will say as many times as necessary
to put the point across, is to go to Congress or the major news
media with his own story about CRS and back it up with documents
and records.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                    Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:42:33 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:00:51 -0400
Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Sparks



 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:33:05 -0700
 >From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:27:34 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark

 >>I must have missed something. Why on earth is the CIA interested
 >>in the whereabouts or otherwise of Noah's Ark? Are they covering
 >>up the Tooth Fairy as well, and those secret photos of Santa's
 >>Workshop in Lapland?

 >Hi John,

 >I would recommend keeping an open mind about what interests the
 >intelligence community. There is an author who used to make a

<snip>

Mt. Ararat is just several miles from the border of the former
Soviet Union.

The first item reportedly in the CIA file on the 'Ararat
Anomaly' are photos from a secret USAF reconnaissance flight in
June 1949 that caught some anomalous object on Mt Ararat.

It has long been rumored that one of the searches for Noah's Ark
on Mt Ararat in the 60's was actually a secret CIA mission to
plant a telemetry receiver to pick up signals from Soviet
missile tests and space launches from its Kapustin Yar site.

Mt. Ararat is the highest mountain in the region and well
situated. The area around Mt Ararat is a political hotspot with
decades of bloody clashes between Turks and Kurds, the border
with Iraq is not too far, etc. Plenty of reasons for CIA to keep
an eye on all of it for multi-purpose uses.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:23:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:56:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 13 Jul 2001 16:26:44 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:32:51 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Steve Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:22:07 -0400

 >>>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>>Date: 10 Jul 2001 20:46:53 -0700
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>><snip>

 >>>>Sheehan may address some of these questions in the couple
 >>>>occasions when he talks on UFOs in the next couple weeks.

 >>>>Lets wait and see what he says. Smith could answer all these
 >>>>questions too, but I doubt she will. She has had the e-mail a
 >>>>couple days now.

 >>>Follow the process through if you don't get a reply. You can
 >>>forward your questions to your elected Representative in the
 >>>House and ask them to "officially" request clarification from
 >>>Ms. Smith. They will most likely forward your request directly
 >>>to CRS and that will generate an official response.

 >>>My understanding is that Marcia Smith really isn't interested in
 >>>becoming involved in the UFO genre, and she may not want to
 >>>respond for fear of becoming further entrenched.

 >>Many thanks to the participants of this very technical debate,
 >>hard to follow at times, but quite interesting.

 >>Special thanks to Grant Cameron for not giving up to the sharp
 >>critics.

 >>I have a couple of remarks and questions regarding the
 >>non-answer, so far, of Marcia Smith.

 >>There are basically two main options: has Daniel Sheehan told
 >>the truth (except for rather minor mistakes), or has he invented
 >>a story?

 >Gildas,

 >An interesting and almost undiscussed point. Sheehan is a
 >prominent lawyer in federal circles. Very hard to believe he
 >would flush his whole 30 year career to tell some whacko story
 >about a field of investigation that has brought no prominence to
 >anyone in it.

 >>It it is an invention, then there is no problem for Marcia Smith
 >>to say so. The fact that she does not is already interesting. It
 >>is not just a two days silence.

 >Poor woman is between a rock and a hard place. She has
 >researched UFOs enough to know what happens if one gets sucked
 >into the endless debate with a comment on either side of the
 >issue. Feel sorry that she has to be dragged in, but she has to
 >be. One reporter watching the story also seems to feel sorry for
 >her. When I asked for a media call to Smith for a comment on the
 >record, (should Marcia not respond to the e-mail) I was told
 >that this person did not know if that would be "appropriate".

 >>Sheehan has been telling his story for quite some time. I
 >>listened to it when he spoke at the Laughlin Conference in March
 >>2000. There has been plenty of time for Marcia Smith to redress
 >>things if necessary.

 >You listened to Sheehan in Laughlin which is more than I did. At
 >that time I had the same bias that seems to be affecting others
 >right now. When Sheehan gave the final address I was outside
 >talking on the Boardwalk. I figured "What the hell would some
 >civil rights lawyer from Harvard know about UFOs?"

 >I came in for the last-half of the address and was impressed at
 >the intelligence that he portrayed.

 >Worse yet, my roommate in Laughlin interviewed Sheehan for three
 >hours the night before in our room. I was in the room twice and
 >did not even listen to what they were talking about. I believe
 >they were discussing politics. Amazing what opportunities we
 >lose when we hang-on to our preconceived notions.

 >>On the other hand, if the story of Sheehan is true,
 >>can she confirm it?

 >She can, but doubt after a long career in Washington she will
 >cut her own throat. She lives there and knows how ugly it can
 >get if one gets caught up in a major story. I'd be hiding in the
 >weeds too, if I were in her position.

 >I will do what I can to get her to get her on the record.

 ><snip>


Hiya Grant, hi All,

I've been following this conversation carefully. I figured it's
time to 'chime in' on it speaking as a spectator. I agree with
Gildas that Grant is to be commended for weathering the hail of
responses (both good and bad) with a lot of class throughout
this discussion. I also agree with Gildas that even though the
dialog has gotten a bit too technical to follow at times, it is
of great interest nonetheless.

My questions/observations are as follows:

Sheehan is a lawyer. Why hasn't he taken his case to the courts?
Dick Hall pointed out that Mr.Sheehan seems to focus on
"preaching to the choir" (giving talks to UFO groups) about what
he's seen, rather than making a "Federal case" out of it. It's a
valid question and one that needs answering. Playing out your
case in a 'mock court' is one thing but, "there's nothing like
the real thing baby."

Because of 'who' Sheehan is, and his long standing reputation, I
don't think the man would trash his career and reputation just
to lie to the general public. Doesn't make _any_ sense that such
a man would do something like that. I believe Sheehan should be
given the 'benefit of the doubt' (innocent until _proven_
guilty) by all parties concerned. If it turns out (down the
road) that Sheehan was/is jerking everybody around, we can all
have him for lunch then. For now, it's important for all of us
on the sidelines to refrain from passing final judgement until
all the ducks have been accounted for and arranged into neat
little rows. With the intensity of the light that is shining
down on him now, if there are any chinks in the armor, they will
soon begin to make their presence known to all.

I hope we get to hear from Marcia Smith at some point. I think
the public pressure for her to issue some kind of statement will
soon make it imperative that she does so. Even if, only to get
the weight of the UFO community and any media people off of her
back.

Thanks to Grant and to Dick Hall and all concerned for their
input. I'll be listening attentively when Sheehan speaks on SDI
tonight. I'd like to see Dick Hall get a chance to ask him a few
direct questions this evening. Dick, I hope you get to tune in
and put a few pertinent questions to Mr. Sheehan himself.
Nothing like getting it straight from the horse's mouth! ;)


Regards to all,

John Velez, UpDates Listerion :)










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                   Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:07:26 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:29:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Sparks


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 06:51:27 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Misperceptions On 'The French DMI Report'
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:10:47 -0000

<snip>

 >>Something very similar applies to Sheehan's story (and that's
 >>all it is so far). Grant Cameron keeps circulating it, and when
 >>people raise serious questions about its validity, he says "ask
 >>Sheehan." Cameron is the one circulating the story and insisting
 >>that we take it seriously, so it is up to him to check on its
 >>obvious credibility problems. It is not up to us to try to prove
 >>a negative. Furthermore, that shifts the burden of proof to us,
 >>and we don't have the time or interest to chase down every
 >>unsubstantiated claim. He is the advocate.

 >>The bottom line is this. Sheehan's story, if true, would easily
 >>blow the lid off any U.S. cover-up, if he is a credible witness.
 >>And if he really did the things he claims to have done, he
 >>should have ample documentation of it that he could easily
 >>produce: Contracts, letters, pay records, tax forms.
 >>Documentation of briefings to JPL and the like should be easy to
 >>locate.

 >I understand better your global reaction of suspicion, in the
 >absence of any documented, written proof of his story.

 >Considering the situation now, and this already long exchange on
 >the list, it seems rather urgent for Daniel Sheehan to produce
 >such documents, about at least some parts of his testimony.

 >He should have documents at least on his contacts with the
 >Vatican, and on his lecture at JPL.

 >I wonder, though, if such documents, concerning very private,
 >confidential actions, can be made public from a legal point of
 >view. Anyone can answer that

Gildas,

No one is going to sue a bigshot attorney such as Sheehan. And
as an attorney with many years of experience he should know all
about the basics for documentation of witness claims. Yet we
don't see a shred of any such evidence even about the purported
3-hour briefing at JPL and his story has been shot full of holes
from beginning to end. Even Grant Cameron pointed out two
glaring factual errors in Sheehan's story - that Bush was out of
the CIA by time Carter became President and as a result could
not possibly have been trying to avoid what Sheehan called a
"major confrontation" with President Carter as CIA Director.

<snip>

 >It is the same problem as the critic which has been raised
 >against the idea that President Carter did not act properly if
 >he tried to get information on UFOs in a very indirect, clumsy
 >way, by asking help from the the CRS, an unimportant service of
 >Congress.

This is well put but the point is not whether Carter acted
properly but whether the story is full of it and that these
"clumsy" absurd aspects are the signs we would expect from a
thoroughly confused virtual non-event.

My proposed scenario is that Sheehan was simply asked by Marcia
Smith of the CRS to contact the Vatican for bland UFO
information for a CRS report on UFO's that had nothing to do
with Carter or Bush. When the Vatican surprised Sheehan by
refusing, his discussion of the refusal with Smith brought up a
story of a similar alleged stonewalling, a rumored confrontation
between Carter and Bush that Smith had heard about from
somewhere (maybe even the National Enquirer for all we know).
Only many years later as events became conflated and garbled in
his mind, Sheehan connected up Smith's telling him about the
Carter-Bush rumor to Smith's request to him for Vatican data as
cause-and-effect, which made the memories more meaningful
instead of isolated and unconnected.

 >Perhaps it was purposedly a discret inquiry, in order to avoid
 >direct conflict with the CIA and Pentagon? If Carter sensed a
 >very strong resistance in front of him, it may well have been
 >his best choice.

That makes no sense at all. Best choice for what, for _not_
getting any UFO information out of the CIA? Why do anything then
if it wasn't going to achieve results? Why go to an "unimportant
service" (CRS) of Congress which had no power or expertise in
getting declassification of CIA documents when there were much
more powerful Congressional agencies such as the GAO that _did_
have the power and expertise? Why not just have his own CIA
Director, Adm Stansfield Turner, get the UFO documents out of
the CIA? After all, Turner later did order a search for CIA's
UFO documents in 1978 after reading a NY Times article about the
FOIA lawsuit against his agency for release of UFO documents

 >He was not a very 'strong' President. Even a strong President
 >like Eisenhower had warned publicly against the excessive power
 >of the "military-industrial complex".

You make Carter out to be a fearful weakling which is not true,
you're confusing the latter part of his term, when he was
literally physically exhausted from years of micromanaging the
nation, with the early part of his presidency when he was just
getting started. Carter completely shook up the CIA when he took
office in 1977 - when the alleged Sheehan story took place.
Carter put Turner in charge of the CIA to clean up the place,
instead of someone to CIA's liking. Turner came to be hated by
the Agency, for his firing of 800 Clandestine Service officers,
among many other things.

It makes better sense that Sheehan has simply connected up two
unrelated UFO matters from the same time period (1977) - a story
and an unrelated request both uttered by the same person (Marcia
Smith) in the distant past and that from this distance of time
it looks like they were related when they were not. And that's
even assuming the Marcia Smith part of the story is even
correct. If Sheehan was given copies of Smith's UFO reports she
supposedly prepared in response to President Carter's alleged
request then where are they?

 >And, as Grant Cameron has pointed out here, the GAO had very
 >serious problems as well with its Roswell inquiry. And even DCI
 >James Woolsey seems to have had problems too!

It is irrelevant what happened in the 90's to the situation in
1977. Why don't you draw out the supposed absurd conclusion -
that the GAO was completely powerless and instead it was the CRS
that was mighty and powerful. You'd get a lot of laughs from
Beltway insiders about that one.

 >Now, let's consider the situation of Daniel Sheehan.

 >Suppose his story is true (regardless of minor mistakes).
 >Suppose that the same thing would have happened to you, that you
 >would have seen very hot documents on UFO secrets, but for the
 >eyes only, and on the occasion of a very confidential inquiry.
 >What could you do? You would have no written proof. The only
 >person who could confirm your screening of these documents
 >remains, and probably will remain silent.
<snip>

He says he received copies of the CRS reports he supposedly
helped with! Did he just "lose" them? Or will it turn out that
the CRS reports in his files will be the published ones from
1976 that everyone already knows about and because of the date
cannot possibly have anything to do with a purported
stonewalling of President Carter by Bush in 1977?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

               Cydonian Imperative: 07-14-01 - Large Geometric

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:32:05 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 07-14-01 - Large Geometric


The Cydonian Imperative
07-14-01

Large Geometric Grid Found on Mars

See:

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

Keith Laney has discovered a large geometric grid on
Mars that, more than any such feature detected so far,
resembles the foundation of a terrestrial city. The
regularity of the lines is remarkable, and suggests
intelligent design. Could this be a geological
phenomenon? If so, it appears to be the first of its
kind.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:27:33 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:59:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hall


 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:23:20 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Date: 13 Jul 2001 16:26:44 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

<snip>

 >Hiya Grant, hi All,

 >I've been following this conversation carefully. I figured it's
 >time to 'chime in' on it speaking as a spectator. I agree with
 >Gildas that Grant is to be commended for weathering the hail of
 >responses (both good and bad) with a lot of class throughout
 >this discussion. I also agree with Gildas that even though the
 >dialog has gotten a bit too technical to follow at times, it is
 >of great interest nonetheless.

 >My questions/observations are as follows:

 >Sheehan is a lawyer. Why hasn't he taken his case to the courts?
 >Dick Hall pointed out that Mr.Sheehan seems to focus on
 >"preaching to the choir" (giving talks to UFO groups) about what
 >he's seen, rather than making a "Federal case" out of it. It's a
 >valid question and one that needs answering. Playing out your
 >case in a 'mock court' is one thing but, "there's nothing like
 >the real thing baby."

 >Because of 'who' Sheehan is, and his long standing reputation, I
 >don't think the man would trash his career and reputation just
 >to lie to the general public. Doesn't make _any_ sense that such
 >a man would do something like that. I believe Sheehan should be
 >given the 'benefit of the doubt' (innocent until _proven_
 >guilty) by all parties concerned. If it turns out (down the
 >road) that Sheehan was/is jerking everybody around, we can all
 >have him for lunch then. For now, it's important for all of us
 >on the sidelines to refrain from passing final judgement until
 >all the ducks have been accounted for and arranged into neat
 >little rows. With the intensity of the light that is shining
 >down on him now, if there are any chinks in the armor, they will
 >soon begin to make their presence known to all.

 >I hope we get to hear from Marcia Smith at some point. I think
 >the public pressure for her to issue some kind of statement will
 >soon make it imperative that she does so. Even if, only to get
 >the weight of the UFO community and any media people off of her
 >back.

 >Thanks to Grant and to Dick Hall and all concerned for their
 >input. I'll be listening attentively when Sheehan speaks on SDI
 >tonight. I'd like to see Dick Hall get a chance to ask him a few
 >direct questions this evening. Dick, I hope you get to tune in
 >and put a few pertinent questions to Mr. Sheehan himself.
 >Nothing like getting it straight from the horse's mouth! ;)

John,

I agree almost 100% with your statement of the issues and
priorities. Unfortunately, my hours and SDI's tend to be
incompatible; I'm a morning person. Others will have to carry
the ball, and a number of you are totally capable of doing that.

One thing I do object to is the presumptuous conclusion that if
Marcia Smith doesn't answer, she is either (a) hiding something,
or (b) unable to answer because of security restrictions. This
is just so much self-serving nonsense. How about (c): As the
preponderance of evidence suggests, she is a UFO skeptic who
finds the whole topic a drain and she would rather have nothing
to do with this whole (in her view silly) exercise in totally
unfounded (as yet) claims.

I have not charged Sheehan with fabricating anything. There are
a number of possible interpretations short of that. My
hypothesis is that he has grossly misunderstood some experiences
in which he was asked to help gather some UFO information at a
time that CRS (Marcia Smith) was under pressure to come up with
a report, with some possibly faulty memory for details thrown in
(we are all capable of that sort of failure).

Still, I am deeply bothered by his alignment with Greer and all
the political machinations connected with it. If he is not able
to recognize Greer for what he is, then I have little faith in
his judgment in other areas. And additionally I would have to
begin questioning his entire value system and how much he honors
truth and honesty over "ends justify the means" (i.e., radical
tactics).

Bottom line once again: If Sheehan is telling the truth about
his consultancy with CRS, he is in the unique position of having
it in his power to blow the lid off of a Government cover-up
simply by coming forth with records and documents to support his
claim. Please spare me "mock trials." And if he doesn't have
anything to document his claim, the perhaps he should shut up.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 14

              Re: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence -

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:32:20 +0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:04:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence
 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:00:48 -0000

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Date: 13 Jul 2001 19:17:27 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence

 >>As Danny Sheehan prepares to address the MUFON Symposium in Los
 >>Angeles later this month, I present some words spoken by Sheehan
 >>during an interview with Jeff Rense in July 2000.

 >>The following is the main part of Sheehan's reply to a Rense
 >>suggestion that Sheehan put up on Rense's web site, the symbols
 >>Sheehan claimed to have traced off a photograph of a crashed
 >>flying saucer. The photograph was on one of the microfilms
 >>Sheehan maintains that he reviewed at the Library of Congress
 >>(Madison Building) in 1977.

 >>"Here's what I propose. What we need to do is we need to go
 >>forward and participate in this type of tribunal together.
 >>(Sheehan proposed an evidential tribunal - effectively putting
 >>the United States government, or controlling UFO entity , on
 >>trial at Olympia Washington where the famous first 1947 Kenneth

 >>"What we do is present this in that place in a neutral forum,
 >>because one of my experiences has been, in the short amount of
 >>time that I have worked with this particular part of the public
 >>interest community, that there is a history of people getting
 >>into these kind of competitive arguments with each other, about
 >>the legitimacy of these things. One group sponsors them, and the
 >>other group feels that it is necessary to denigrate them and
 >>attack them . . . "

 >>"We (Christic Institute), as sort of the preeminent legal team
 >>of our whole generation, can evaluate the witnesses. I'm not
 >>going to be standing there in front of a 12 person jury with
 >>some story like 'my cousin's brother talked to some truck driver
 >>at the station and this is what he said.....'."

 >>"You're going to be up against Jerry Spense (prominent trial
 >>lawyer who Sheehan proposed might act as counsel for the other
 >>side). He's going to chew your shorts off. We have to have the
 >>very best. We have to have the prime evidence. We have to
 >>present it in the best possible way. We need to have it
 >>televised, and on live radio all across the country. There's
 >>people who are going to jump all over this....."

 >Grant,

 >The worst possible thing he could do, if he seriously wants to
 >expose a cover-up, is to put on a 'show trial' like this. That
 >will only give the news media a big laugh. All he needs to do,
 >as I've said elsewhere and will say as many times as necessary
 >to put the point across, is to go to Congress or the major news
 >media with his own story about CRS and back it up with documents
 >and records.


I disagree sir. High visibility lawyers (the kind that the other
side would be get according to DS) go a long way to be taken
completely seriously. Nobody laughed at the OJ trial, a _circus_
but for the two that were murdered. A civil suit _does_ seems to
be the successful instrument of legal efficacy.

It got OJ... and then Sheehan helped get Karen Silkwood's
murderers, the Watergate scurrilous, and Iran/Contra
conspirators, among other first rate and clever psychopaths.
...Seems Sheehan has a track record of association to do this
kind of work with some success... 'oughta give this horse his
head, seems he knows where the barn is at any rate...

Besides, the mainstream is in no way compelled to give _your_
(however noble!) approach the consideration that it deserves. It
shows you no respect for all _your_ scientific diligence;
indeed, your data is only really good (because it is abstruse
and hard for the layman to follow) in the hands of a smart
lawyer who can make it come alive ("...presented in the best
possible way") for the occupants of a jury box, nest ce pas'?

I think you do Sheehan an unearned disservice to paint him as a
clown, and declare him guilty of folly by way of association. I
believe that Sheehan's approach makes the best sense available.
I've pledged to support it. I hope his appearance on Errol's
program signals his return to other venues to make this thing
happen... get the word out.


Lehmberg@snowhill.com









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                   US Congress Hears Alien Life Testimony

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:13:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:13:58 -0400
Subject: US Congress Hears Alien Life Testimony




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: Yahhoo News

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010713/pl/life_out_there_2.html

Congress Hears Alien Life Testimony

By PAUL RECER, AP Science Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Scientists studying the possibility of
extraterrestrial life were encouraged by members of Congress,
just seven years after some lawmakers dismissed the efforts as a
search for "little green men."

In a hearing Thursday of the House space science subcommittee,
lawmakers applauded efforts to find evidence of life elsewhere
in the universe and to search for other Earthlike worlds.

"The discovery of life in the universe would be one of the most
astounding discoveries in human history," said Rep. Lamar Smith
(news - bio - voting record), R-Texas. "Funding should match
public interest and I don't believe it does."

Smith said that since funds for the search for extra terrestrial
intelligence (SETI) were booted out of the federal budget in
1994, "the SETI credibility has been enhanced."

Four scientists appearing as witnesses said that in the last
five years the concept that life exists beyond the Earth has
been boosted by dramatic discoveries both on Earth and in space.

Among the advances cited:

- At least 50 planets have been found in orbit of distant,
sun-like stars in the last five years and researchers now
believe that solar systems may be common through out the
universe. Finding planets was considered an essential step
toward finding life.

"All of these planets are Jupiter-size or larger," said Ed
Weiler, NASA (news - web sites)'s associate administrator for
space science. "No Earth-like planets have been found, but we
don't yet have the technology" to detect planets the size of
Earth in orbit of distant stars.

However, Weiler said that a space observatory now being built
will be able to search for the chemical signatures of life in
the atmospheres of planets up to 50 light years away.

-Liquid water is considered an essential chemical for the
development of life and it has been found now on moons of
Jupiter and in the orbit of at least one distant star. There is
also strong proof that water was once common on Mars and there
are plans to search beneath the Martian surface for evidence of
water, the most likely place for life on the Red Planet.

-Detailed studies of galaxies suggest that the formation of
planets and solar systems may be common. The Hubble space
telescope has captured many images of stars surrounded by the
dust and gas clouds thought to be precursors for planets.

-Researchers have found bacteria that live in the coldest of
salt water, in the deep pressure and heat of volcanic vents at
the bottom of the ocean, and in the most acid of environments.
Since life is possible in such hostile environments on Earth,
then it may also have developed in extreme conditions that may
exist on other planets.

In 1994, some members of Congress ridiculed the SETI Institute
and its efforts to detect radio signals from alien
civilizations, calling the effort "a search for little green
men."

The SETI concept fell so far out of favor that the National
Science Foundation (news - web sites) put a notation on its Web
site that proposals for SETI research were not welcome.

Christopher F. Chyba, a leader of the SETI Institute in
California, said that since losing its congressional funding,
the program has been supported by private donations, has about
120 employees, and is regularly searching for signals on two
million radio channels using a major radio telescope in Puerto
Rico.

Chyba said SETI, in partnership with the University of
California, Berkeley, is now building a $30 million radio
telescope array that will be able to listen to signals from the
nearest one million stars in many channels.

And, said Chyba, the NSF has now removed its restriction on
funding of SETI research. Proposals for SETI research now
compete for funding "on a level playing field" with other
research proposals, he said.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (news - bio - voting record), D-Calif., said it
was impressive that SETI continued to thrive even though federal
funds were cut off, and she said the federal government should
not be against the research.

"We need to let the federal agencies know that bias against SETI
research is not favored," said Lofgren. "No member of this
committee wants bias against any good science."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                            A UFO Fraud Exposed?

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:12:56 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:50:39 -0400
Subject: A UFO Fraud Exposed?


http://www.sufoi.dk/artik-sn/new14-09.htm#top

The Spitsbergen case; well-researched, too.


Paul Stonehill









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                     Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 04:22:04 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:52:55 -0400
Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Hale


 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:33:05 -0700
 >From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark

 >Hi John,

 >I would recommend keeping an open mind about what interests the
 >intelligence community.

Funding - an objective reason to pursue such matters along with
UFOs... just need the right misfits, one thinks?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                     Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:06:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:55:32 -0400
Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark - Gates


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:42:33 EDT
 >Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:33:05 -0700
 >>From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark

 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:27:34 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: CIA Files on Noah's Ark

 >>>I must have missed something. Why on earth is the CIA interested
 >>>in the whereabouts or otherwise of Noah's Ark? Are they covering
 >>>up the Tooth Fairy as well, and those secret photos of Santa's
 >>>Workshop in Lapland?

 >>Hi John,

 >>I would recommend keeping an open mind about what interests the
 >>intelligence community. There is an author who used to make a

 ><snip>

 >Mt. Ararat is just several miles from the border of the former
 >Soviet Union.

 >The first item reportedly in the CIA file on the 'Ararat
 >Anomaly' are photos from a secret USAF reconnaissance flight in
 >June 1949 that caught some anomalous object on Mt Ararat.

 >It has long been rumored that one of the searches for Noah's Ark
 >on Mt Ararat in the 60's was actually a secret CIA mission to
 >plant a telemetry receiver to pick up signals from Soviet
 >missile tests and space launches from its Kapustin Yar site.

Hi Brad,

There was supposedly two telemetry stations on Ararat that sent
info back on Soviet tests. Something else that is highly
classified and likely will remain highly classified, esp if the
Turkish govt knew and approved the arrangement.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:18:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:59:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:50:00 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:03:45 EDT
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

<snip>

 >>Condon Report Case #37, wherein a group of police officers made
 >>the same kind of mistakes in perception and interpretation made
 >>by officer Spaur and his associates with Venus.

 >Notice how Bob Young begs the question here. He assumes his
 >"explanation" of the Ravenna case is necessarily the correct
 >one. Thus it was "Venus" misperceived and misinterpretated by
 >all the policemen. Of course, the way he arrives at this
 >conclusion was by assuming to begin with that it was Venus
 >misperceived and misinterpretated by all the policemen. In other
 >words, his premise and conclusion are one and the same.

David, List:

David Rudiak thinks that someone is begging the question when
they - surprise - put forth information which supports their
hypothesis but not his. Notice how he completely ignores the
fact that I have identified another similar incident in which
mitaken policemen chased Venus thinking it was a flying saucer -
something which he says cannot possibly happen.

Here we have the mind of the believer in full denial.

 >Furthermore, he assumes as another premise, that what
 >happened in the next case from 1967 is identical to what
 >happened at Ravenna, and vice versa.

One was in 1967 and the other in 1966.

<snip>

 >>Hynek concurred that this was indeed Venus when he wrote, "It
 >>is a fantastic example of how persuasive the planet Venus can be
 >>as a nonscreened UFO. Police officers in 11 counties were
 >>"taken in" by this planet." (The UFO experience, p. 205)

 >Well, I checked, and Bob Young at least got the quote correct.

Thank you, sir.

 >In all fairness, if Bob wants to cite Hynek as support for his
 >position, shouldn't he also mention Hynek's lengthy discussion
 >of the Ravenna case on pages 100-108, with Hynek weighing in on
 >page 107 that it was a "strong unidentified" and angrily
 >denouncing Blue Book's "satellite and Venus" explanation.

The Deferring to Authority falacy. I am capable of making my own
judgement. Venus and Mercury gleamed in the morning sky. The
cops reported the UFO and a bright star. If they thought Venus
was the UFO for 75 miles, they probably had thought that it was
the UFO for the first mile or whatever.

<snip>

 >Another point made by Hynek immediately before the quote given
 >by Bob Young was that if the witnesses report seeing the same
 >UFO in the same part of the sky on multiple days, then there is
 >a very good chance the explanation is either ordinary aircraft
 >or something astronomical. (That certainly was not the case for
 >Ravenna, which completely unlike the case below, occurred on
 >only one morning, not over multiple days.)

Sorry, David. Spaur reported that on a subsequent morning the
thing was also in the sky, but frightened, I guess, by the thing or
the consequences of having been wrong, he reported smoking and
staring at the floor inside his police car and not looking up.

Very similar to the behavior of a believer who has apparently not
conducted my little proposed experiment to look at Venus right
now in the early morning sky to see if you can produce little rays
when you move your head around.

Afraid of discovering that the Emperor has no clothes, like Spaur?

<snip>

 >In the second case below, described in the Condon report, the
 >sightings were over several days and involved multiple witnesses
 >and reports. In most of these reports (but not all) the
 >witnesses reported small star-like objects in the vicinity of
 >Venus and Jupiter.

So did Spaur, and the other bright star like point off light was
most likely Mercury, gleaming in the sky near Venus.

 >In these particular reports, the sightings very likely were of
 >Venus and Jupiter. But the logical fallacy of Bob Young, the
 >Condon people, and even Hynek is therefore assuming that ALL the
 >reports were necessarily explained by Venus/Jupiter.

Well, if one assumes that the witnesses thought the things they
saw on subsequent days were all similar, that's not such an
unreasonable assumption. After all, the people demonstrated,
repeatedly, that they were capable of mistaking ordinary sky
objects for UFOs. We're not talking about other people, now, but
the _same_ guys on other nights. Jeez one has got to excersize
some independent thinking, here.

Let's see, now, despite being able to solve a series of reports
as misperceptions of mundane objects, we just must assume
that the witnesses saw a saucer because all such reports must
be believed.

<snip>

If you take every long-solved IFO and assume that there must be
a flying saucer behind it, somewhere, how do you get any serious
investigations done?

Of course, I should have figured this, from somebody who still
defends the Roswell fiasco as the crash of an alien spaceship to
the earth. Lord, can we move on?

<snip>

 >"After we returned to town and got a third officer to come out
 >with us, the object had started climbing." [Unfortunately
 >doesn't describe the period of time over which the climb
 >occurred, which is an important piece of information that should
 >have been determined by the investigators.]

 >We observed the object for about 20 minutes. It changed from
 >bright red to orange, then to real white looking.

In 20 minutes Venus could have risen 3 or 4 degrees and could
have changed colors in this way through less atmospheric
extinction, in the same way that the Sun becomes less red as it
rises. This is perfectly reasonable.

 >The object
 >then appeared to change its shape from round to the shape of a
 >giant four-leaf clover. " [If this was "Venus" rising in the
 >morning sky then any atomospheric distortion of shape should
 >have decreased, not increased as it got higher. However, it is
 >conceivable that the officers were perhaps sighting Venus here.

Sure, the brilliant planet was causing little optical effects
and rays. But, of course, you don't believe that this can ever
happen.

 >But this does not explain the earlier part of the sighting where
 >there is he description of an oval object of very large size and
 >bright enough to light up the surroundings.]

Well, for God's sake, one can suppose that the guy knew that
he was looking at the same thing for 20 minutes.

 >"Our radio operator contacted the officers in Town C. In a few
 >minutes, they radioed back, and said they had the object in
 >sight. It was to the east of us, apparently hovering over Town
 >B. From Town C, it was _to the west_ and appeared to be between
 >town A and Town B. We had it between the two of us."

No, they may have been looking at two different objects in the
sky.

[Obviously "Venus" cannot simultaneously appear to be both in
the east and west,

Doesn't it strike you as somewhat odd that the objects were
described as exactly "east" and "west"? Nothing else in this
tale is exact, why should these directions be? The obvious
answer is that they were not exact.

 >though this doesn't seem to bother Bob Young
 >a wit, judging by his previous ignoring of such "Venus"
 >direction anomalies in the Ravenna case. It also doesn't seem to
 >bother the Condon investigators. All they noted later in the
 >report is that the bright star Capella "could be seen to the
 >west (northwest) during the early morning hours, implying that
 >some sightings to the west might also be explained by Capella.

 >Please note the inexactness of the position they attribute to
 >Capella. Could it appear to be in the "west" and perhaps explain
 >what the policmen in town C saw to the west? We will never know
 >for sure, because the investigators didn't nail down the time or
 >tell us where towns A,B, and C where relative to one another, or
 >exactly where the various policemen were supposed to be, all
 >critical pieces of information. As best as can be determined
 >from the little information they did give us, this dual
 >direction sighting of the object probably took place roughly
 >between 5:30 and 6:15 am .

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. On the one hand you
criticize this incident's Condon investigators for not being
specific but then insist that descriptions like "east" and
"west" mean that an object to the west of the zenith was not the
object someone assumed to be over a hearby town, to the west.

 >Now we come to Capella's position and why they might choose not
 >o be very precise about where it actually was at the time.
 >Capella was somewhere between about 70 and 75 degrees up in the
 >northwestern sky, i.e., it was very close to the zenith. One
 >would have to crane one's head very sharply up to observe it.
 >Objects this high up in the sky do not usually provoke a sense
 >of clear direction, as they do when they are much lower in the
 >sky. It is therefore highly questionable that Capella would be
 >the object reported by the officers in town C as being to the
 >"west" of them and appearing to be between towns A & B.

No, this is exactly why Capella could therefore be reported as
being to the "west", over a nearby town.

 >In his book, Craig further misrepresented some of the data. He
 >wrote, "As our pointed questions were answered, certain
 >uniformities developed. The object was _always_ seen near the
 >eastern horizon."

 >This statement by Craig is obviously completely false,

He concluded that there were two objects being reported by
different people from different towns, and you call his
statement completely false? You can't even give him the benefit
of his own conclusion.

<snip>

 >Now having said all that, I think they were probably right that
 >a lot of these sightings in Georgia over a period of four days
 >could probably be properly explained as various people mistaking
 >Venus and Jupiter for UFOs.

Which is why I cited this chase when you thought it wasn't likely
to happen.

 >I'm just not convinced that>_everything_ here can be
 >well-explained away this way.>There could have been a genuine
 >UFO sighting or two, particularly the first night, with a lot of
 >noise generated by misidentifications after that.

If this 1967 incident proves anything it is that a bunch of cops
could, mistakenly, chase Venus for 8 miles, just as those in
Ohio there year earlier chased the Queen of UFOs for 80 miles.
They were all confused by planets and stars in the sky and
excited by the chase.

 >Ravenna is an entirely difference case with many different case
 >details, such as being confined to only one morning.

No, two.

<snip>

 >There are even examples where debunkers have used
 >Venus to explain away UFO cases when it wasn't even in the sky.

What does this have to do with the Ravenna and Millidgeville
cases? If you can cite an incident when I have claimed Venus was
in the sky when it wasn't, I will cheerefully refund your money.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:34:56 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:29:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young


 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:29:47 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >>Date: 13 Jul 2001 09:32:27 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:03:45 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Not to change this subject, although I would prefer to, Venus
 >looks entirely white to me. If there is anything whiter in the
 >sky, I'd like somebody to point it out. Any whiter, and a star
 >looks slightly bluish.

It can be reddish when rising or setting and viewed thought the
denser atmosphere near the horizon.

 >To further change the subject, one of my peeves is the "red"
 >planet Mars. I admit that on the rare occasions when Mars and
 >Venus are in the sky at the same time, Mars looks more red than
 >Venus, yes. Mars is redder than a blueberry pie as well, but it
 >just isn't "red" to me.

Agreed. Mars is a golden yellow to me. In a telescope the
deserts are sometimes sort of a salmon shade, but never what one
could call "red". There also is the problem that right now there
is a lot of dust in the martian atmosphers, not a global dust
storm but a pretty good one. I have read the claim that Mars is
the only planet whose surface changes can be seen with the naked
eye, in that the planet is lighter in color during global dust
storme. Never been able to prove it since I read that, but it
makes sense. Problem is recording the exact color that you see.

My guess is that the color red was associated with war and blood
and that the title is poetic license. But, what if it has
changed in color since it was named? Just speculation. This
thing is that only the brighter stars appear to have any color
to the naked eye, usueally just a little yellowish. So, Mars
probably is the _reddest_ thing in the sky

Here is a very cool site on which you can follow the dust storm
from Mars Global Orbiter pictures, it's red here, but only for
informaiton:

http://emma.la.asu.edu/


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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

From: From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:51:51 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:31:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >Date: 13 Jul 2001 09:32:27 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:03:45 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:06:05 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >I have found the planet Venus or the star, Sirius, to be the
 >source of a few UFO reports.

<snip>

 >Here is the rub though. The witness sees the suppossed UFO each
 >night returning to the same location. And that is exactly what
 >one would expect of a planet.

Yes, I have been able to have witnesses solve their own
sighting by going out the next night and looking for the UFOs
they reported, and they concluded that stars were what they
were observing for two hours, jerking back and forth in the sky.
Hard to believe, but then I guess that is how there are IFOs.

 >I have never heard the witness
 >describe Venus as "red" or "as large as the moon"

I have.

 >so these police officers, who we expect to have some ability
 >to observe and describe their observations accurately for
 >purposes of crime reporting or suspect identification completely
 >lose that ability when it comes to seeing something unusual in
 >the sky! This seems like a stretch.

Scary, isn't it? But under the right conditions, and group
psychology, it has happened. Police officers are just like the
rest of us.

 >Even when having doubts about sighting Venus, a quick lookup in
 >Astronomy magazine or on the internet should identify its
 >location in the sky on any hour of any day of the year and the
 >experienced sky observer would not easily mistake Venus for a
 >UFO.

Good advice. Also, there are several inexpensive astronomy
computer programs around.


Clear skies,

Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:19:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:51:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:27:33 -0000

 >>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:23:20 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>>Date: 13 Jul 2001 16:26:44 -0700
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 ><snip>

 >>Hiya Grant, hi All,

 >>I've been following this conversation carefully. I figured it's
 >>time to 'chime in' on it speaking as a spectator. I agree with
 >>Gildas that Grant is to be commended for weathering the hail of
 >>responses (both good and bad) with a lot of class throughout
 >>this discussion. I also agree with Gildas that even though the
 >>dialog has gotten a bit too technical to follow at times, it is
 >>of great interest nonetheless.

 >>My questions/observations are as follows:

 >>Sheehan is a lawyer. Why hasn't he taken his case to the courts?
 >>Dick Hall pointed out that Mr.Sheehan seems to focus on
 >>"preaching to the choir" (giving talks to UFO groups) about what
 >>he's seen, rather than making a "Federal case" out of it. It's a
 >>valid question and one that needs answering. Playing out your
 >>case in a 'mock court' is one thing but, "there's nothing like
 >>the real thing baby."

 >>Because of 'who' Sheehan is, and his long standing reputation, I
 >>don't think the man would trash his career and reputation just
 >>to lie to the general public. Doesn't make _any_ sense that such
 >>a man would do something like that. I believe Sheehan should be
 >>given the 'benefit of the doubt' (innocent until _proven_
 >>guilty) by all parties concerned. If it turns out (down the
 >>road) that Sheehan was/is jerking everybody around, we can all
 >>have him for lunch then. For now, it's important for all of us
 >>on the sidelines to refrain from passing final judgement until
 >>all the ducks have been accounted for and arranged into neat
 >>little rows. With the intensity of the light that is shining
 >>down on him now, if there are any chinks in the armor, they will
 >>soon begin to make their presence known to all.

 >>I hope we get to hear from Marcia Smith at some point. I think
 >>the public pressure for her to issue some kind of statement will
 >>soon make it imperative that she does so. Even if, only to get
 >>the weight of the UFO community and any media people off of her
 >>back.

 >>Thanks to Grant and to Dick Hall and all concerned for their
 >>input. I'll be listening attentively when Sheehan speaks on SDI
 >>tonight. I'd like to see Dick Hall get a chance to ask him a few
 >>direct questions this evening. Dick, I hope you get to tune in
 >>and put a few pertinent questions to Mr. Sheehan himself.
 >>Nothing like getting it straight from the horse's mouth! ;)

 >John,

 >I agree almost 100% with your statement of the issues and
 >priorities. Unfortunately, my hours and SDI's tend to be
 >incompatible; I'm a morning person. Others will have to carry
 >the ball, and a number of you are totally capable of doing that.

 >One thing I do object to is the presumptuous conclusion that if
 >Marcia Smith doesn't answer, she is either (a) hiding something,
 >or (b) unable to answer because of security restrictions. This
 >is just so much self-serving nonsense. How about (c): As the
 >preponderance of evidence suggests, she is a UFO skeptic who
 >finds the whole topic a drain and she would rather have nothing
 >to do with this whole (in her view silly) exercise in totally
 >unfounded (as yet) claims.

 >I have not charged Sheehan with fabricating anything. There are
 >a number of possible interpretations short of that. My
 >hypothesis is that he has grossly misunderstood some experiences
 >in which he was asked to help gather some UFO information at a
 >time that CRS (Marcia Smith) was under pressure to come up with
 >a report, with some possibly faulty memory for details thrown in
 >(we are all capable of that sort of failure).


Hello Dick, All,

Dick writes:

 >Still, I am deeply bothered by his alignment with Greer and all
 >the political machinations connected with it. If he is not able
 >to recognize Greer for what he is, then I have little faith in
 >his judgment in other areas. And additionally I would have to
 >begin questioning his entire value system and how much he honors
 >truth and honesty over "ends justify the means" (i.e., radical
 >tactics).

I'm "bothered" by it too Dick.

To Victor Vigianni and Michelle Deschamps: regarding your remarks
on SDI.

Gentlemen, the character and credibility of the individual who
heads up such a project most certainly _does_ matter. Greer has
ripped people off left and right for their _work!_

He publicly presumes to speak for the aliens motives.

He has publicly tied the issue of UFO disclosure to space
missile defense weapons and "Free" energy. Both of which are
political 'hot button' issues and which virtually guarantee that
the UFO agenda will fail.

He put several questionable people before the national and
international press in a critical situation (for all of us) only
because he didn't bother to check them out carefully in the
first place.

Are you suggesting that we're supposed to ignore all that (and
more) simply because he "took the initiative" when no one else
did?

I'm sorry man. I don't speak for anybody but me, but I'm here to
tell you that I won't do it. I am a strong supporter of the push
for disclosure, but I do not support Dr.Greer. (For all of the
above reasons.) I can't believe that you guys are willing to
"look the other way" in the name of expedience.

 >Bottom line once again: If Sheehan is telling the truth about
 >his consultancy with CRS, he is in the unique position of having
 >it in his power to blow the lid off of a Government cover-up
 >simply by coming forth with records and documents to support his
 >claim. Please spare me "mock trials." And if he doesn't have
 >anything to document his claim, the perhaps he should shut up.

Yeah, this "mock" trial as opposed to a "real" one has me a bit
bamboozled. On SDI he spoke of airing it on TV, radio, and the
Internet. If he really had anything 'tangible' we'd be getting a
"real" trial and not just another UFO media circus. He should
pitch it to the Fox network. They _love_ producing craptacular
UFO programming. Puts a bunch of butts in the seats every time.
:)

I'm also willing to play "you show me yours and I'll show you
mine" with his alien symbols. I'll send him a copy of the ones I
saw for a copy of the ones he saw. It would be interesting to
see if there are any 'matches' among them. I can't believe he's
had those symbols since 1977 and hasn't shared them with anyone.

Errol, act as an intermediary and propose my 'swap' idea to him.
We could both send you copies of our "alien symbols" and you can
send them out to each of us simultaneously. No chance for sneak
peeks. :)  You can also report to the list if there are any
correspondences between them. Wadda ya tink?


Regards,

John Velez








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

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

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:23:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:21:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 01:08:46 -0400

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:28:07 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>The Kecksburg saucer crash was a meteor,

<snip>

 >Where'd you get the idea that the Kecksberg Object was a
 >meteorite? No one's ever seen it.

Hi, Michel:

Where'd you get the idea that I said it was a meteorite?

 >Here's another case of poo-pooing the eyewitness testimony, and
 >making a mundane explanation fit something that isn't so.

 >I should know. Had plenty of sightings, and there are always
 >Ignoramuses who think that I mistook some celestial body or
 >as-of-yet undiscovered atmospheric condition for UFOs.

More is known about this object that most other meteors. The
meteor train was photographed by two independent
photographers and using these pictures, the seismic recording
of the sonic boom the object's path in the atmosphere was
determined and an orbit determined. A scientific article was
published, with photos, more than 30 years ago. It's not a
mystery.

 >Based on eyewitness testimony, this Kecksberg object was on a
 >slow, gliding descent, and changed direction twice.....a
 >streaking meteor can't do that!

14 kilometers per second wasn't gliding. One turn was because an
ignoramus who wrote an article about the thing three days after
it happened interviewed no witnesses, used news accounts and
assumed that just because a witness was located someplace, the
fireball was there, too, when the thing was visible for about
350 miles around. He dropped some witness accounts because they
didn't fit his theory and miscalculated the speed by a factor of
60. His times came from useing different estimated times from
many places instead of the times of aircraft chronometers and
flight time from witnesses in one place.

The second "turn" showed up decades later from a tiny handfull
of people who wanted to get on TV,supported by investigators
desperate to keep their exciting saucer crash tale together.

 >James Oberg was an idiot for saying it was a Russian probe... I
 >think there would have been a large _CCCP_ written somewhere on
 >the side of the object, had it been a probe or a satellite. Not
 >the highly unusual symbols that were seen on it.

"Seen" by one man who admitted that he only told the story to
get on TV and another guy who didn't even know where the search
really happened in 1965, leading the UFO investigators to the
mistaken location published in a local paper, 1/2 mile away on
another farm, and a third guy who's story only surfaced to match
a TV show and its exciting phony details, with an account to
improbably it's a joke.

 >As I always say... same crap, different pile!

You are so right, my friend.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                  Re: UFOs & Government Protocols - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 09:41:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:10:44 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs & Government Protocols - Aldrich


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 8 Jul 2001 00:05:45 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: UFOs & Government Protocols

I was going to let this message go by without comment, but it is
so offensive to logic and UFO history that I am required to say
something.

First, Grant, your ideas about the function the American
government are, to say the least, naive. As an absolute minimum
you should get a book on Frank Roosevelt, he was able to
increase the power of the presidency. We have a purposefully
divided and inefficient system, which provides not for smooth
operation, but against the concentrations of power.

Second, you have made a number of statement below concerning UFO
history which are just completely incorrect.

 >Government Protocols about UFOs

 >In a discussion on the July 7, 2001 radio program 'Strange
 >Days... Indeed' I had a discussion with Dick Hall about
 >protocols in relation to the Daniel Sheehan case where he claims
 >he viewed classified Blue Book files in the basement of the
 >Madison Building in Washington D.C. in 1977. A number of readers
 >of Sheehan's account have stated it could not have occurred as
 >Sheehan claims the incident unfolded, because it did not follow
 >in many respects the protocols that normally would have taken
 >place in a similar type of case.

 >I made the statement that protocols are rarely if ever followed
 >in UFO cases handled by the government. I would add to this at
 >this point that on the low level "light in the sky" cases, the
 >government would follow a standard protocol.

No, there are conflicting missions with regard to UFOs, air
defense and technical intelligence. There is not one standard
protocol.

 >With any cases
 >where the integrity of the overall secrecy of the program is at
 >stake, the protocols would be entirely different from standard
 >government protocols.

If these examples below are suppose to prove your point they
fail.

 >Dick Hall seemed to be saying that in investigating UFO claims
 >it is important to compare the claim of the witness to protocols
 >commonly used in the government.

 >I would like readers to comment on where they stand.

 >To start it out I would propose, as example, that the following
 >items clearly illustrate that standard protocols are not used in
 >critically important UFO cases.

 >1) The entire concept of MJ-12 (and the entire supporting
 >structure under it) does not follow standard protocols.


First of all, where can I contact MJ-12, where do they reside.
Oh, we have onion skins, and photocopied documents, and that is
the extent of the evidence of MJ-12. These documents have so
many howlers in them that it is a wonder they are taken
seriously at all.

Let's see, we have several examples which are simple

www.cufon.org

Go to UFO Historical Revue and click on issue #3, Jan 1999

Also, go to Other Documents and click on

Fraudulent 27-Sept-1944 "MJ-12" Document

This last is a letter from General Marshall to Thomas Dewey
which has been modified to look like an MJ-12 document.

There are more of these gems floating around. Don't expect the
Woods to tell you about them.

Timothy Good pointed out that some of the Cooper documents have
the same characteristics type writer flaws as typed letters Good
received from Cooper. Please notice, we didn't get any detailed
rebuttal, the great MJ-12 analysts, just a brush off.

SOM 1-01, now there is a piece of trash if I have ever seen one.
I did a down and dirty analysis of this one years ago. Just a
quick inspect revealed all kinds of stupid things.

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m18-001.shtml

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m18-003.shtml

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m18-008.shtml

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m19-004.shtml

The corker for me is that the Twelve Muckheaded Jerks could not
even foresee the problem of being observed by fly overs and
observation from higher ground when a recovery operation was in
effect. Even if the error were in the original text, the change
sheet indicated that this manual had not been update to take
that into account. Gross negligence! The president ought to fire
everyone of these great military and scientific geniuses who
could even think of camouflage nets or tentage!

Oh, BTW, do you think if there is a UFO crash you might want to
document the location of each item found and tag them before you
put them in a box? As I have said before, this was written by
someone who fell asleep during technical intelligence processing
class.

Finally, we can't forget that with the MJ-12 documents also came
one other which the title page was fabricated with a
plastic cover sheet used in executive correspondence. However,
when this was revealed do you think the promoters of such stuff
were the ones to take the hit, no most people did not want to
hear about how they had been deceived, they wanted the scalp of
the person who showed them they had been fooled.

All that said, there are positions and organization used to
coordinate and specialize in certain areas. The Director of
Central Intelligence is one. These guys are many time called
czars, as the Drug Czar. The reason such positions are created
is that there are continue turf wars for power within the
executive. Creations of such positions, hardly ever settles
anything.

 >2) The fact that not all UFO cases ended up in Project Blue Book
 >clearly show that protocols for collecting, evaluating, and
 >making cases public was not always followed. I would propose
 >that the cases that were handled with secondary protocols, were
 >the ones that provided the best evidence of the reality of the
 >UFO phenomena.

1) Where is it written that all cases had to go to BB? If it was
an air defense matter, it was dealt with as air defense. If it
was a satellite re entry a number of agencies were involved.
This bothered Col Watson in 1951 and he protested it to Cabell.

2) The Air Force was declared the primary agency to handle UFOs
in 1964. (Dick Hall has the copy of the Federal Register in
which this was published. I knew I should have made a copy of
this! <g>) When Shallett did research on his article for The
Saturday Evening Post, concurrence of the Army and Navy were
required before he could read the files at Wright-Patterson AFB.

3) Three areas which could involve UFO reports where there are
interest to other agencies immediate come to mind, down
satellites and space debris, nuclear testing, air defense.

 >3) The destruction of the Roswell Air Base administrative and
 >outgoing messages without proper documentation of who destroyed
 >the records and under what authority, for the time period of the
 >Roswell incident shows clearly protocols are not always
 >followed. Again the key deciding fact appears to be the
 >important of the case or in this case records.

This isn't your fault, Grant. The GAO report is incorrect on
this item.

See:

http://www.project1947.com/roswell/rosearch.htm

Mr. W. G. Seibert, chief of Appraisal & Disposition Section,
National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, Missouri, did
inform the GAO that military regulations in force at the time
stated that records


"...accumulated at or below wing level will be scheduled as one
item and destroyed after two years. It is clear from the
foregoing that agency records management officials, if acting in
accordance with agency regulations then in force, should have
destroyed the records in question rather than transfer them to
St. Louis!" [Seibert's emphasis.]

Clearly, as is required regulatory practice today at lower units
in the chain of command, many records are destroyed after a
short holding period. Mr. Seibert's letter was not mentioned in
the GAO report.

------

Seibert sent three packets in June and July detailing the
authority and documentation concerning records the destruction.
The regulation in force at the time was the authority, no
additional authorization was required. As to who destroyed the
records, such destructions are not necessarily a permanent
records, so those are not required to be on hand. The shipping
lists of documents were, in fact, annotated with this
information.

So, in fact, protocols were completely followed here.

 From a records management point of view, and perhaps records
destruction should be more thoroughly documented. However, the
actions taken at the time were completely proper. (Outgoing
messages for one place are incoming messages to another. It
appears that no thorough search for record copies of such
messages at higher or other interested agencies were searched,
AAF, SAC, CONAF, etc.)

 >4) In 1959 the CIA and USAF investigated a woman by the name of
 >Mrs. Swan. She claimed to be in contact with an alien. She
 >taught the procedure of contact to a Navy officer who
 >demonstrated the technique at the CIA photographic lab where all
 >the U-2 photos were analyzed. CIA officer and director of the
 >lab, Art Lundahl, called in Blue Book head Robert Friend. Friend
 >watched the officer perform the contact. Friend was very
 >impressed with the demonstration calling it totally unique. He
 >wrote a report and suggested that the woman be investigated by
 >Duke University. At this point a General told him "another
 >agency was investigating, we should drop it." In this case, the
 >protocols for the handling of UFO information was clearly
 >changed to a higher different set of protocols.

This is very amusing. This was one thing Friend could safely
write about after his career was over, so he did. Col Friend
spent much of his time as BB chief trying to get the project
transferred away from ATIC. Of course, he would suggest Duke
University as a possible place to look into this incident.
Again, sole AF authority was not asserted until 1964, and even
so, if an agency had a reason in its charter to look at
something, they were going to look at it.


 >5) The total lack of UFO records inside the executive branch
 >shows clearly that the protocols of the President being in
 >charge are being avoided, or the Presidential records are
 >elsewhere, which breaks with protocol for the release of
 >Presidential records.

This is completely and utterly false! There are, in fact,
records all over the executive branch, Justice, State, CIA, DOD,
mostly in the intelligence branches of these agencies. This is
completely false! If you are saying there are no records in
presidential papers you are also wrong, there are a number of
letters and other communications in presidential libraries.

If, in fact, the UFO problem was considered a trivial problem
there would be no need for records in the Presidential papers. I
don't think anything like a thorough search has been
accomplished here, either.

 >6) Finally, in a non UFO situation, but involving a key UFO
 >personality, I present the words of General Nathan Twining
 >discussing protocols used during the development of the ICBM.
 >"We just moved in and violated all the rules. We didn't have the
 >procedures. They (Congress) knew the bills would be paid, and if
 >one were asked to do something by Schiever's group, a company
 >say, they knew they were going to get paid and everything was
 >alright. They went ahead and did the job." The interviewer
 >conducting the oral history for Columbia University asked, "the
 >statutes weren't actually changed then--." Twining replied, "no,
 >no." Asked by the interviewer, "just ignored?" Twining replied,
 >"That's right. That's right. We accomplished a great deal, I'll
 >tell you."

Reasoning by exception. Gulf of Tonkin resolution was used by
three administrations to do extraordinary things in Viet Nam.
Same with ICBMs. These are illustrations of power grabs.
Immediately, after the Viet Nam war was over, Congress tried to
reassert its authority to see that no such thing happened again.
War Powers Act.

Also, the emergency presidential powers granted during the
Korean War were still in effect during the ICBM crisis.

Again look at FDR, after he died Congress tried to limit the
power of the president by limiting him to only two terms.

I never thought much of Truman, but he did voluntarily
relinquish many wartime emergency measures and dismantled many
of the extraordinary powers and authorities, transferring huge
sectors back to the private economy. The emergency powers
vested in the presidents during the Koreans war and not lifted
until after the Viet Nam war were pale beside the powers
involved in WWII.

Constant struggle happens in the government sometime it takes
time for the other parties to react or marshall their forces.
"Abuses" are not corrected by someone, somewhere throwing a
switch. It is something like a dynamic equilibrium, where if
something gets too out of balance, other forces move in the
opposite direction, maybe at a snail's pace, but they move.

 >These are a few incidents off the top of my head. I am certain
 >there are dozens of other examples. I am not saying by this that
 >protocols should be totally ignored. They may aid in finding
 >documents, and may indicate trouble in a case. However, standard
 >government protocols can not be relied on to accurately evaluate
 >a case, because as the examples above show protocols are not
 >etched in stone. They can be changed in the blink of an eye.

I doubt that you have proved your case except in your mind. I
don't find any of these things convincing in reference to what
Sheehan has said.

 >"Go shit in your hat." -- The verbal response given by the
 >Pentagon military spokesman to the GAO when asked for
 >information on Roswell.

Of course, we have discussed this above item elsewhere, no
individual is cited, nothing that indicates that it is has
anything more than a rumor.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

              Re: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence -

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:32:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:40:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence -


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 13 Jul 2001 19:17:27 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Daniel Sheehan & The Evaluation of Evidence

 >As Danny Sheehan prepares to address the MUFON Symposium in Los
 >Angeles later this month, I present some words spoken by Sheehan
 >during an interview with Jeff Rense in July 2000.

 >The following is the main part of Sheehan's reply to a Rense
 >suggestion that Sheehan put up on Rense's web site, the symbols
 >Sheehan claimed to have traced off a photograph of a crashed
 >flying saucer. The photograph was on one of the microfilms
 >Sheehan maintains that he reviewed at the Library of Congress
 >(Madison Building) in 1977.

 >"Here's what I propose. What we need to do is we need to go
 >forward and participate in this type of tribunal together.
 >(Sheehan proposed an evidential tribunal - effectively putting
 >the United States government, or controlling UFO entity , on
 >trial at Olympia Washington where the famous first 1947 Kenneth
 >Arnold sighting took place)"

 >"What we do is present this in that place in a neutral forum,
 >because one of my experiences has been, in the short amount of
 >time that I have worked with this particular part of the public
 >interest community, that there is a history of people getting
 >into these kind of competitive arguments with each other, about
 >the legitimacy of these things. One group sponsors them, and the
 >other group feels that it is necessary to denigrate them and
 >attack them . . . "

This last quote is a construct a lawyer would love. Seehan is a
lawyer, is he not?  He knows about evidence, I hope. He has, as
yet, given nothing that qualifies as such, but others that have
found flaws in his story have pointed them out, terrible
denigrating individuals--they shouldn't think so much, just
accept anything that is passed on to them as devine truth. That
would make a lawyer's job so much more easy, don't you think?

He has a tracing he made from the microfilm. Does he have any
other notes? Where were the microfilm made? Was there one or
many? Where is the documentation of all this activity he claims
he was engaged in? Just like Corso, there is nothing there yet.
Just tales from the UFO vault.

Oh, while we're on Corso, guess who appears on Greer's witness
list? Why "Col." Corso? How interesting! The man who said he is
responsible for surrounding the earth with a huge space based
defense system which is keeping the aliens at bay, is now
enlisted in a political movement to make sure no such system is
ever deployed. Hello, is there a disconnect here, possibly? Or
is it just more of those nasty denigrating individuals casting
aspersions. They are into to things like logic and evidence,
those completely evil ones!

 >"We (Christic Institute), as sort of the preeminent legal team
 >of our whole generation, can evaluate the witnesses. I'm not
 >going to be standing there in front of a 12 person jury with
 >some story like 'my cousin's brother talked to some truck driver
 >at the station and this is what he said.....'."

 >"You're going to be up against Jerry Spense (prominent trial
 >lawyer who Sheehan proposed might act as counsel for the other
 >side). He's going to chew your shorts off. We have to have the
 >very best. We have to have the prime evidence. We have to
 >present it in the best possible way. We need to have it
 >televised, and on live radio all across the country. There's
 >people who are going to jump all over this....."


Well, if there is prime evidence, let's see it. We have had much
yet

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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                               Simone Mendez?

From: Karl T. Pflock <Ktperehwon@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:06:58 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:43:50 -0400
Subject: Simone Mendez?


Dear Colleagues & Friends

I hope someone out there can help me get in touch with 'retired'
UFO researcher Simone Mendez. She provided some important
documentation and other useful information for my new book. In
appreciation, I would like to present her with inscribed copy of
the book.

If anyone out there is in touch with Simone or knows someone who
is, please get directly in touch with me.

Thx.,

Karl









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:16:06 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:45:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Sparks


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:18:19 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:50:00 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:03:45 EDT
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

 ><snip>

 >If you take every long-solved IFO and assume that there must be
 >a flying saucer behind it, somewhere, how do you get any serious
 >investigations done?


By scientific _investigation_ McDonald found that many alleged
IFO's in the Blue Book files and in the Condon Report were
actually UFOs - Hynek reclassified about 53 Blue Book IFOs as
UFOs just scratching the surface. This was not assumption but
fact. One of the best UFO sightings in history, that of
legendary aircraft designer Kelly Johnson and his top Lockheed
staff, was miscategorized as an IFO. See upcoming IUR article on
the case.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                      Re: A UFO Fraud Exposed? - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:23:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:47:00 -0400
Subject: Re: A UFO Fraud Exposed? - Sparks


 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:12:56 -0700
 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: A UFO Fraud Exposed?


 >http://www.sufoi.dk/artik-sn/new14-09.htm#top

 >The Spitsbergen case; well-researched, too.


I don't see anything "well-researched" on the case here at the
URL given.

It looks very poorly researched and superficial with extremely
late and irrelevant sources going into 1954 from 1952.

In fact, US Govt documents including CIA documents released
under FOIA trace the story back to a source who allegedly read
the story in a Soviet Bloc classified military publication in
1950.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                     Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:17:47 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:49:38 -0400
Subject: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology


List,

I just came across an interview with Daniel Sheehan that I had
missed before, by Vicki Ecker in UFO Magazine, Oct/Nov 2000. It
states that Sheehan's entrance into the UFO field "[involves]
the creation of a corporation to disperse funds on behalf of UFO
disclosure... the named principals, who, besides Sheehan,
include attorney Peter Gersten, Alfred Webre... lobbyist Steve
Bassett and Michael Brownlee." The latter is the only name I
don't recognize.

The now familiar CRS story is recounted, but with a few
intersting twists. He describes what sounds very much like the
standard Project Blue Book microfilm files, and in them he found
the snowy, "crashed saucer" scene.

His description of dealings with Marcia Smith and many other
points sound suspiciously to me as if he is reading into what
actually happened and superimposing some inaccurate
interpretations. But I am trying to gather more data to clarify
a number of points. A few questions (I'll have more to say
later): Did anyone hear Sheehan on Strange Days... Indeed last
Saturday? I was not able to hear it. Maybe it will be on the
station archives eventually.

Does anyone know who Brownlee is? Has an actual corporation been
formed? (If so, its papers should be available to the public.)
Has anyone asked the Jesuit National Headquarters in Washington,
D.C, their side of the story in regard to requested access to
alleged Vatican UFO files?

I note in this interview Sheehan says he was invited to address
JPL about the "theological implications of the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence." (A lawyer?)

Finally, does that snowy "crashed saucer" scene with soldiers in
parkas standing around it sound familiar to anyone?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                      Re: A UFO Fraud Exposed? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 13:43:52 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:51:00 -0400
Subject: Re: A UFO Fraud Exposed? - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:12:56 -0700
 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: A UFO Fraud Exposed?

 >http://www.sufoi.dk/artik-sn/new14-09.htm#top

 >The Spitsbergen case; well-researched, too.



Hello Paul:

Ah yes, Spitzbergen. This one keeps resurfacing no matter how
many times or how well it is shot down. Ole Jonny Braenne has
done a fine job of that. The Spitz story belongs on a nice list
of canards for just those reasons.

To do so, I need at least an approximated date for the saucer
crash that didn't happen. I know its not easy to date something
that never happened, but I try to assign accurate non-dates for
my non-events too.

Does anyone have a fairly accurate non-date I can
use?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:37:30 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:55:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:19:57 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:30:23 -0000

 >>Stan,

 >>I respect your overall contributions to Ufology, but your
 >>continued defense of Gerald Anderson is beginning to make you
 >>look silly.

Silly when one investigates instead of proclaims? Sorry I don't
buy it.

 >>Since when does any rational person start apologizing for liars,
 >>hoaxers, and forgers? If you do that, by what double standard
 >>can you discount Adamski, Greer, Corso, etc., etc.?

 >>Dick

 >Dick,

 >I'm with you on this one.

 >If I've got it right, Friedman's reasoning regarding Barney
 >Barnett and a third crash in the Plains of St. Augustin goes
 >something like this (and anyone please correct me where I'm
 >wrong):

Boy are you confused, Dennis. No you do not have it right.What
third crash?

 >A bona fide diary that didn't mention anything about such a
 >crash is enlisted as evidence that there was indeed such a
 >crash.

Ruth Barnett's diary, indeed bona fide, was never enlisted by me
as evidence there was a crash. It does provide evidence that
Barney was over in the Plains at least 40 times in 1947 and was
never listed as being East of Socorro.

I take it you will throw out everything Kevin has written (I
don't) because of his false claim that Barney lied to Ruth and
was really at the debris field well east of Socorro instead of
in the other direction? He also falsely claimed that Corona was
in Barney's region.

I noted other false claims in my Roswell Revisited paper and
subsequent followup. If the diary had shown that Barney was in
Albuquerque or El Paso the week of July 2-9, that would be
something else, indeed.It is less than 60 miles from Magdalena
to the crash site. So if Barney went from his home in Socorro to
his office in Magdalena and then out to the Plains, had his
experience, and came back, the diary entry for July 3 would have
permitted that, too.

 >Subsequently, a diary that did confirm such a crash, but which
 >was later demonstrated to be a blatant hoax, is also enlisted as
 >evidence of a crash, presumably because its hoax/author passed a
 >polygraph test.

So where is the demonstration of a hoax as opposed to a claim? I
had the ink dated. It preceeded the date when The Roswell story
got any publicity. If it hadn't been expensively dated to
earlier than the Roswell fuss, I would have dumped the whole
thing.

 >What is wrong with this picture? A will to believe any and
 >everything one is told. (Friedman has never yet met a New Mexico
 >crashed saucer story that he didn't welcome with open arms.)

What nonsense! Did you see me support Frankie Rowe after talking
to her? Did you see me support Frank Kaufmann after talking to
him?

 >Why do ugologists put up with this slipshod sort of crap?

 >Don't expect an answer anytime soon. After all, Friedman is
 >presently in Roswell, promoting his view of events, which, you
 >can bet your ass, includes anything but a criticism or rational
 >assessment of Anderson and his long ago discredited claims.
 >And you wonder why there are still UFO skeptics out there?

It did take me a while to go over the 400 email awaiting me and
those received subsequently and the orders that came in as a
result of the Art Bell show.

Long ago discredited? Perhaps you ought to read the relevant
papers. Yes, he admitted changing a phone bill to Walt and me
and others... Claims? Yes. Evidence no. Try avoiding research by
proclamation. That is one of the things that make some people
UFO skeptics. One of my emails contained the astounding statement
that the MJ-12 documents were found lying in a Xerox machine!!

 >Hell, ufology itself gives them all the ammunition they need
 >not to take the subject seriously.

 >Dennis

Yes, Dennis a splendid example was Kent Jeffrey's long MUFON J.
article about Roswell, loaded with false reasoning and total
ignorance about how security works, and the January, 2001 MUFON
Journal piece about MJ-12.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                          Mel Gibson & Crop Circles

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:31:13 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:03:45 -0400
Subject: Mel Gibson & Crop Circles


I read somewhere in the last two days that Mel Gibson is making
a movie called, I believe, Symbols. It's about a farmer [Gibson]
who deals with some crop circles in his field.


Don







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:25:15 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:02:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman


 >From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:17:47 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>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

 >Stan wrote:

 >>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 [Anderson] passed a
 >>polygraph examination.

 >To Stan and List:

 >I cannot believe that you are running Gerald Anderson up the
 >flagpole again. Some of us, fortunately, still remember. If you
 >recall, we exposed him as a hoaxer almost a decade ago. As a
 >result, you and Don Berliner were forced to issue a mea culpa
 >concerning the veracity of Anderson. It saddens me to see you
 >trying on this old shoe again. Must we go through the entire
 >litany of Anderson's fabrications once again?

Maybe we should, and replace myths with facts. Yes he changed a
phone bill and has admitted it. He was indeed justifiably angry
at the demonizing of him that was being done.That doesn't
justify the changing. As I recall you did an article demonizing
him in IUR noting he was a poor high school student but not
noting his GED and many subsequent college courses. You and
others claimed he was in Buskirk's class. No support for that
from Larry Henning, with whom I spoke yet again yesterday . Nor
from other students with whom I spoke who were in the class and
didn't recognize Gerald from his yearbook picture.

People have claimed he wasn't in the Seals, apparently because
some guy told Kevin he didn't recall him.. Real evidence that.
It is claimed he faked the uncle's diary. Basis?? I had tests
done. The ink predated Roswell noise.


 >>Ace investigator Vic Golubic dug out other Plains area
 >>testimony.

 >I have had occasion to talk to Ace Investigator Vic Golubic on
 >a number of occasions over the years, mostly about his efforts
 >to find Glenn Dennis' missing nurse. Never was able to get much
 >out of him though as he always would come down with a case
 >of the dread "Clinton's Syndrome" ["I can't recall."] whenever I
 >asked him for name or two. Ditto for his claims of having found
 >additional, corroborating sources for a 1947 Plains crash. He'd
 >toss out that teaser in our conversation and then "forget" who it
 >was that told him. He hasn't published anything on either of his
 >investigations [and has no plans to publish] as far as I know, so
 >what are we to believe from him when he refuses to provide
 >names to verify his claims? Fortunately, the answer to Ace's
 >Plains claims has come to us partly through hard work and
 >partly by serendipity.

 >On a recent research trip to NM with Don Schmitt, after spending
 >several days in the Plains region attempting obtain from local
 >ranchers information about a possible 1947 UFO crash there, we
 >stopped in a restaurant in Datil or Magdalena [I can't remember
 >which] for dinner. During our discussion, a woman came in and
 >overheard our conversation. She came over to our table and
 >started to tell us about how she had escourted this young fellow
 >all over the place a few years ago in a search for anyone who
 >might know something, anything  about an alleged 1947 UFO
 >crash on the Plains. I asked her if his name was Ace Investigator
 >Vic Golubic, and she said that it was. "How many witnesses did you
 >and Ace find?", I asked her. "None", was her disappointed reply.
 >"Did you and Ace find out ANYTHING useful?", I then asked. "No.
 >Nothing." The rib-eye steak was worth the price, however.

Perhaps you might enquire as to how many trips Vic made and how
many people Vic spoke to and how few of those conversations
(well under 10%) the lady was present for? He spoke to over 150
people and has quite an oral history for the area.  He offered
to share it with you for your book. Guess you forgot that.

 >The point is, Stan, you have invoked Ace Investigator Vic Golubic
 >and his "other testimony" to support your case for a 1947 Plains
 >crash. However, you have not mentioned any new names over the
 >last few years, just the same old ones mentioned herein yet again.
 >This leads to a reasonable conclusion that the woman in the
 >restaurant was correct. There aren't any.

I take it you have some evidence that her excursion was the only
one made by Victor? Come off it Tom. When I mention names they
get totally ignored or demonized. How about Johnny Foard? How
about Colonel Leed? How about Harold Baca? Vern and Jean
Maltais? Robert Drake? How about JG? I presume they don't count
because they say what you don't want to hear. Tough luck.

 >Tom Carey

I am glad to hear you were out in the Plains. I am sorry to hear
you present such a loaded picture of what Victor and others have
done. Of course there is a lot of noise to go with the signal.
Selective choice of data and demonization are hardly scientific
tools.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                   Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 15 Jul 2001 20:11:12 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:08:05 -0400
Subject: Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript


Interview with Daniel Sheehan July 14, 2001

'Strange Days....Indeed'

with

Errol Bruce-Knapp and Scott Robins

Transcribed by Grant Cameron

SDI: Our guest for tonight has degrees from Harvard in
government law and divinity. He established the Christic
Institute in Washington D.C., and has been legal counsel on
many high profile cases.....

Cases such as Karen Silkwood for example - Iran-Contra, the
American Sanctuary Movement, the Pentagon papers, Three Mile
Island, and Watergate. He has gained access to many restricted
government files. Danny has represented John Mack, chairman of
the Harvard Department of Clinical Psychology, after Harvard
tried to fire him after he published "Abduction: Human
Encounters with Aliens." Mack tried to publish an article on
his research in the New England Journal Of Medicine, but the
editorial board wouldn't even consider it, so he wrote the
book. Daniel Sheehan funded by Laurance Rockefeller resolved
the case against John Mack very quickly. Daniel Sheehan has
said that many members of the human family are not properly
prepared for open contact with extraterrestrials. In May he
appeared with many UFO related witnesses with the Disclosure
Project at a Washington Press Conference. Joining us from his
home in California is lawyer Daniel Sheehan.

(A short segment ensued where Steven Bassett, held over from
the hour before, says hello to Sheehan and thanks him for the
work that he has done over the last year to advance the
Disclosure process.)

[The interview began with a short clip of Sheehan recounting his
experience of seeing classified materials in the basement of a
building of the Library of Congress in 1977]

SDI: Dan Sheehan. You have been a busy man since you were last
on this program which was back in October, many months ago.

DS: Yes I remember.

SDI: That was a clip that we played from your last appearance
with us. Were the documents that they showed you... were they
identified in any way? Were there classification marks on them?

DS: No, no. As I had mentioned they were in a set of boxes,
which were sort of like shoe box-sized boxes, kind of off khaki
green color. There were many, many of them in this room. What I
did is I just started going through on at a time. I was looking
at the photographs. The photographs didn't have any
classification markings on them. They were in these little
metal containers, almost like little film canisters. They
didn't have any classification stamps or documents on them. All
I know is this is where I was told to go by Marcia Smith. When
I got there they knew that I was coming. They checked my
identification, and cleared me into the room. They didn't ask
for any special verification, whether I has special classified
status or anything. So I just went in and took advantage of the
opportunity.

SDI: Daniel take us back to how this all started. You're
obviously out for the truth, the facts. You are, because of who
you are, in a position to gain some access, gain some
information, credibility, to allow this information and these
hidden documents to come forward. Tell us how this all started
for those of us who are really not familiar, so we can discuss
it and take it from there.

DS: Well it started with - interestingly enough - I have
mentioned it before, that I was actually having dinner with
Rosemary Chalk who was the Secretary of the National Academy of
Science in Washington D.C. I happened to know her. I was General
Counsel at the Jesuit National Headquarters, Office of National
Social ministry. We went to church together, and I had talked to
her at church, with a number of other people. She invited me to
dinner at her home, in Washington D.C. I was there. This was in
late 1976, sometime and I was having dinner with her - I've
explained this all a dozen times now. She was telling me that
based on the cases I had worked on up to that time that she
assumed that I must have been just a born lawyer - that I'd
always wanted to be a lawyer my whole life - that I must have
been thinking of this since I was a kid.

I told her actually no. I was actually wanting to be an
astronaut, and that I was an applicant to the United States
Academy in 1963 when I was a senior in high school. I had
actually been one of the finalists in New York State to be
appointed to the Air Force Academy, so I could go there and join
the astronaut program. It's a long story, but Senator Jacob
Javits ended up giving the appointment to someone else. He told
me to go get the appointment from my Congressman. My
Congressman, Carlton King, had given the appointment to the son
of the mayor of Glen's Falls, the biggest city in my county. So
I was sort of flabbergasted by all this, and offended at it, so
I decided, because I was not going to get into the Air Force
Academy, I should become a lawyer, thinking that I would just
have to do a little fine tuning to keep things like this unfair
act from happening again or taking place in the future. Turned
out that it was a much longer duty than I thought it was going
to be. Ended up spending the next thirty years of my life full
time involved in social justice litigations.

So I explained this to her, and she was kind of flabbergasted
that I really wanted to be an astronaut. She asked me why I
wanted to be an astronaut, and I said that I thought that the
most one exciting single event that was going on in our lifetime
was the reaching out into outer space, with the potential
contact with extraterrestrial civilizations. She was very
surprised by this, and she said "Gees, there's a person who I
should introduce you to. She's a friend of mine." She said, "Her
name is Marcia Smith, and she is the director of the science and
technology division of the Library of Congress's Congressional
Research Service. She's been working on a number of projects,
and doing research on UFO stuff and extraterrestrial
intelligence."

So it was Rosemary Chalk who introduced me to Marcia. Sometime,
there after, I met Marcia. Marcia told me that she had been
asked by the Science and Technology Committee of the Library of
Congress to undertake an evaluation of two separate issues. One
was the potential existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
The second was the evaluation of the data on these phenomena of
UFOs. I was pleasantly surprised to find that in her official
capacity as director of the Official Congressional Research
Service, that she had been asked by the United States Congress
to do this investigation. This went on for some period of time.
I made inquiries about how this thing got started. Who was it
that wanted to have this thing done?

It turned out that President Carter, then in 1977, when he had
actually come into office. It turned out that President Carter
had had a sighting when he was still governor of Georgia. He
and a number of other people had seen a UFO and he had written
an official report and asked that it be investigated. So it
turned out that when he came to the Presidency, he had actually
asked to have the information regarding the existence of
extraterrestrial intelligence and the UFO phenomena sent to
him. This procedure of asking the United States Congress - The
Science and Technology Committee of the House of
Representatives to have the Science and Technology Division of
the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service gather
all this information together and make a determination about
what information was going to be released to the public and
how much was going to be made available to congress could be
made in that context.

So it was in that context that I was talking to Marcia Smith
and Marcia asked me whether as General Counsel to the United
States Jesuit Headquarters, there at their National Office in
Washington D.C., whether or not I could get access to the
section of the Vatican library in Rome that would contain this
information - any information that the church had on
extraterrestrial intelligence and the UFO phenomena.

I was very pleased to try to do that. So I asked Father Bill
Davis, who was the Director of the National Office at that time
(1977) if I could follow that process of trying to get that
information from the Vatican. He gave me his official
approval, so I undertook that process, but much to my surprise
in fact, and much to the surprise of Father Davis I might add,
we were refused access to that particular portion of the
Vatican Library. So I sent back a second letter to the Jesuit
who was the head of the Vatican library, and explained to him
that this was an official request that had come from the
Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress -
that it had come from the Congress of the United States, and
that the President himself had wanted to get this information.
So I thought that would get us the information, but I received
a second response from the Vatican Library saying no - the
Jesuit National Headquarters would not be provided with this
information. So I had to regretfully report that back to Marcia
Smith letting her know that I was not able to get it.

So I hadn't heard from Marcia in a while, and she called me and
told me that the United States Congress had cut, in half I
believe, the funding for the SETI program, the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence project at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in California, and wanted to know if I in my
capacity as the General Counsel for the Jesuit Headquarters
Office of Social Ministry that dealt with public policy. She
asked if I would be willing to join a group of former
astronauts, and some other people to go and meet with a number
of key congressmen to lobby them - to ask them to reinstate
these funds for SETI. I was more than happy to do that. Again I
got permission from Father Bill Davis, and he consented to
this, so I participated with them.

Shortly after the full funding was reinstated for the SETI
project. I was then asked. Marcia called me from the Library of
Congress, telling me that the scientists at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, in the SETI program, wanted to have me give them a
seminar out at JPL talking about the potential theological
religious implications of potential contact with
extraterrestrial civilizations.

I was delighted to do that, so I said to Marcia "Look if I am
going to be doing this, which I am totally delighted to do, I
would like to be able to get access to some of the data that
you might have available in the course of your doing this
investigation for the Science and Technology Committee in
Congress.

So she said, "Well what would you like to see?" It didn't take
me a second to tell her what I wanted. I would like to see the
classified sections of the Project Blue Book. Well, she said
that she didn't know whether the Air Force and the Department
of Defense would agree to release these to the Library of
Congress, but she would try. So she contacted them and shortly
thereafter she called me and she said, much to her surprise,
"They have agreed to do this."

So she gave me a particular date and time and told me that I
should go over to the new building at the Library of Congress,
which was on the other side of Independence Avenue. I had
mentioned before, when asked about this, this building had not
even been opened yet. There were no people in it. I went over
there, I believe it was on a Saturday morning and brought my
identification. I went to the door, and there was an Executive
Protective Service officer at the front door of the Library. I
showed him my identification. He was a little puzzled because
there was nobody in the building. No offices had been opened
yet. I showed him my identification, and he made a call. A
little bit to his surprise he said, "Yes, you are expected."

So I went in, and he told me what room I was expected to go to.
I went down the hall, and went downstairs into the basement
looking for this room. I found this place, and there was a room
and these two security officers there at the door, and there
was actually a third, plain clothed, sitting at a desk to the
right of them.

As I came in there I showed them all my identification, and
they checked some documentation that they had, and said "Yes. I
was supposed to be here."

As I started to go in, the man sitting at the desk told me I
had to leave my briefcase there. I wouldn't be allowed to take
any notes. It turned out I had a yellow pad under my arm, so I
set the briefcase down, gave it to him, and I went into the
room. I was in there for some time. There were a bunch of
documents there. There was actually a film machine. It was like
a little reel-to-reel - kind of a film machine there. I don't
know if it was 35mm, or whatever those things were. So there
was actually some little films there.

I looked at some of the films and they were like the classic
films that you have seen, sort of far distant shots of strange
moving vehicles. So I decided I wasn't making much headway on
this, so I began to look into these little boxes, that had
these canisters there. There was one of these overhead
filmstrip machines that was sitting in the room. I began to
take these little canisters out, and open them up, and put the
filmstrips in and look through these things. I don't know how
many I had gone through. I had gone through several, or at
least a few of these boxes, when I hit upon this one cannister
that had film and pictures. I started going through, turning
the little crank and there it was.

Again I have people about this a number of times. There were
these photographs of unmistakable - of a UFO sitting on the
ground. It had crashed, apparently. It had hit into this field
and had dug up, kind of plowed this kind of trough through this
field. It was wedged into the side of this bank. There was snow
all around the picture. The vehicle was wedged into the side of
this mud like embankment kind of up at an angle. There were Air
Force personnel. As I cranked the little handle, and looked at
additional photos, these Air Force people were taking pictures.
In the photograph they were taking photographs of this vehicle.
One of the photos actually had the Air Force personnel with
this big long tape measure measuring this thing. You could see
that they had these parkas on, with little fur around their
hoods. You could see that they had the little name tags on
their jacket. They were clearly U.S. Air Force personnel.

I was kind of in this strange state saying, "Here it is!" So I
turned the crank for more pictures, and I could see on the side
of this craft these like little insignias - little symbols. So
I turned ahead a couple of pictures to see if there was a
closer picture. Sure enough there was. One of the photos had
kind of a close-up picture of these symbols. So what I did is,
I was getting nervous. I looked around, and the guys weren't
watching or anything. They were outside of the room, so I took
the yellow pad, and I flipped it open to the little grey
cardboard backing and I flipped it under the screen. I shrank
the size of the picture to the exact same size as the back of
the yellow pad, and traced the actual symbols out in detail,
verbatim of what was there.

Then I said like I'm going to leave. That's it. I've got this,
and I don't want to push my luck on this thing...commercial
break

SDI: Danny, a long row you have been hoeing there. You said that
over in 76 when you were at a friend's place for dinner,
culminating in this recent sit-down, in a yet to be occupied
basement of a building in Washington, to be privy to some very
interesting, if not incredible, documentation and pictures -
what have you.

Now, we are going to ask you some questions and move on from
there in terms of what you saw, and what can be accomplished by
this revelation. You were still finishing the story when we
broke for the news.

DS: It's just that once I had copied these out. I have thought
about this a lot of times since that time because it was a
little peculiar since I was there. I was authorized to be
there. I had been cleared into the place, even though they told
me I couldn't take any notes or anything.

Once I had actually seen these pictures, and actually chosen to
copy down and trace these symbols from this craft, I just
decided that I should get out of there. So I got up closed the
little pad, and I put the film back in the canister. I put all
the boxes back where they were, and put the yellow pad under my
arm, and just walked out. As I came through the door, I went
over to get my briefcase up, and the man at the little desk that
was sitting there pointed to the yellow pad under my arm, and he
said, "What's that that you've got there?"

I said,"That's the yellow pad that I had with me."

He said, "Let me see that." He reached out and I handed it to
him. He flipped through the yellow pages, and never looked at
the back, never looked at the inside cardboard backing, and
handed it back to me. So, I just put it under my arm, got my
briefcase and walked out of there.

I went right back to Jesuit National Headquarters, and told
Father Bill Davis about this, and asked to convene a meeting of
the 54 heads of the national Religious Organizations through
the Washington Inter-religious Staff Council to ask for a
special retreat for the churches to discuss potential issues
that the Democratic and Republican parties had not yet taken
positions on. It was a general session, and I raised the issue
with them to see if they would agree to start looking into and
authorize a major official investigation of the existence of
extraterrestrial intelligence and the potential secreting of
information by the Executive Branch of the United States
Government of the existence of this phenomena. They basically
didn't want to do it, and so I was kind of kicking myself. So,
then I went and gave the presentation to the SETI people at JPL
- big three hour seminar discussing the potential theological
implications of contact with extraterrestrial civilizations. I
know that the reports came out, that Marcia Smith in the
Library of Congress prepared two separate reports. One was
specifically restricted to the issue of extraterrestrial
intelligence, and the other one was on the phenomena of the
UFOs.

So I actually saw copies of these that Marcia showed me that
she had completed, and that was that.

SD; There is obviously a desire from inside to get this
information out, to get some real concrete action here - some
headway made, otherwise you wouldn't have been sitting there in
that basement.

DS: It would seem that something had happened, and that's why I
was surprised a little bit with President Carter in the
presidency, having reportedly seen one of these, this report
having been prepared, submitted to the Science and Technology
Committee of the Library of Congress, that something didn't
happen. Of course, you will recall that it was a peculiar type
of presidency with President Carter. He was very much under
siege by extreme conservative forces that were actually inside
his National Security Council. Donald P. Greg, for example, was
in his NSC. He apparently was regularly reporting secret
meetings that they were having all the way to Bill Casey who was
the head of the Republican campaign to try and oust Carter from
the Presidency to the point as you know of intervening in the
efforts that President carter was making to negotiate for the
release of the American hostages from Iran. So it was a
terribly disruptive period of time. Gary Sick who was in the
NSC for President Carter at the time has written a book called
"The October Surprise." It actually delineates his conclusions,
as an official member of the NSC that the efforts of the entire
Carter administration were being sabotaged by extreme
conservative elements that were still in the government that
wanted him out of there. It was very difficult apparently for
President Carter, during that period of time. The only estimate
that I can have is that any idea that he ever had of releasing
information about this ended up getting swamped through the gas
shortages, the difficulties he had with the hostages, and a
whole series of other national security problems. They just
kept him from doing this.

SDI: If we can go back to the room in the basement. You said on
your way in, there were a couple of security people there. Were
they military security? Were they Wackenhut? What were they?

DS: I didn't ask them for their credentials! As I recall they
were civilians. They guy that was at the chair and the desk. He
was in civilian clothes. The other two guys... they had extreme
military bearing, but they were in private clothes - in suits
and ties, but I got the impression that they were military. The
other fellow gave off the vibes of a civilian.

SD; The other question of course is what became of the yellow
pad with the cardboard backing?

DS: Oh, I still have that.

SDI: You do?

DS: Oh yes.

SDI: Has anyone analyzed that? Have you had anyone take a look
at that?

DS: Well actually, no. I've got it in all my Jesuit
Headquarters files. I have them all in file drawers that are in
the basement of the garage.

SDI: What would be the chances of doing a scan of or
reproduction of...

DS: Well, I'm obviously going to have to do that one of these
days. You know when I got asked to give a presentation to
MUFON, I figured it was just important to tell people about
this. I guess I should have realized the potential importance
of the data. There should come a time when I should dig these
documents out, and make them available, which I am going to
have to do.

SDI: Actually, it's extremely interesting because there are
people who contribute to this program who claim they have seen
what they believe are alien symbols, and there have been
reports of other symbols that have been seen on objects in the
sky, and it would be interesting to compare what they've seen
and what you managed to bring out of that room with you.

DS: Yes. It's true. You see I had expected frankly that by this
time that I would have been asked by our community, the UFO
community would have been interested in having a major
professional investigation undertaken. So, I always said to
myself, when that time comes then I know it would be
politically time to bring this forth and to integrate this into
a major professional investigation. Much to my surprise it
still hasn't happened.

SDI: So in the world that is UFO investigation you have been
waiting for the proper vehicle to come forward, but perhaps
shall we say a little frustrated with the mechanics of the UFO
world out there -it's treatment of what you have done, and how
this is all going to play itself out in a factual or
respectable manner?

DS: Well, it's a difficult issue. As you know I think that
there are real effort under way now by members of the post war
generation, now that we are past the cold war. Even though it
was 10 years ago, it seems like it happened just yesterday,
that we are in this new era. It seems to me that we now have an
opportunity in this particular area of public policy, to become
much more sophisticated in this public policy arena to come
together, very importantly, I've raised this twice now in
presentation that I've made. This extraordinary inclination
that seems to be present in this particular community of
attacking, and setting upon each other, over various minutia of
their various reports. I think that what I want to do is
participate in gathering people together, to come together to
discuss these things in an intelligent way, to combine our
forces and our resources to really focus on a concentrated
professional investigation.

This is what our Christic Institute set about doing in the area
of nuclear power, with the Karen Silkwood case, in the areas
dealing with the clan and the Nazis, in the case we did in
Greensboro, in regards to the Contra military funding, in South
America, in the Iran-Contra case. It something that when a
public policy really comes to maturity, they eventually come to
realize that there needs to be this kind of coalition forces in
disciplined attention, verifying in detail, through a
professional investigation the data that we need to move
forward. I'm (?? ) the conference that we are going to be
having down in Irvine here on the 20th and 21th and 22nd of
July for MUFON may well play a major role in bringing people
together to focus our resources on such an investigation.

SDI: Ya, that would be good if that would happen. The two
reports that you say Marcia Smith had produced and done for
Jimmy Carter. You said you say on, or you said you had seen
both?

DS: I saw both of them.

SDI: Were they yet classified?

DS: I don't know. People have asked me that. There wasn't any
classified designation on them when I saw them, or when Marcia
showed them to me.

SDI: What would you say the odds were for an eager beaver
researcher to be able to get their hands on either one of those
reports via the Freedom of Information Act there in the states?

DS: I don't know. It would depend upon whether or not they were
classified. If they were classified, that's one of the 22
grounds on the basis of which the freedom of Information Act
will not give you material.

SDI: But I can't see them not being classified, in view of the
content, and what you said you saw.

DS: Well, it's not clear. Again, I just don't know. We couldn't
tell what it is that was going on at that time. That was right
at the time when we were filing the Karen Silkwood case. I had
just filed the Karen Silkwood case in November of 1976, and was
in the midst of all kinds of preliminary hearings and
depositions and such. While I was extremely interested in this,
I couldn't tell what was really happening. I was waiting for
the President to say something - to do something, but he got
kind of swept up in all those other affairs I mentioned
earlier.

SDI: In that room back in Washington, obviously there were
other things that you saw. This one particular picture of a
plowed furrow in a field, and an object stuck in an embankment,
and hieroglyphics. Beyond that, anything else that you took out
of that room that was significant in terms of its impact on
you?

DS: No, no. I realized that there was probably going to be a
limited amount of time that I was going to get to be there, so
I first started looking through some of the reels that had
documentation on them. I started to say to myself, "Look, if I
start trying to look through these documents, I'm going to run
out of time." So I was trying to find some key photographs. So
that's why I went looking into the canisters looking for a
canister that had photographs in it. That's how I happened to
come to that particular canister.

SDI: Danny, explain this for me if you would. Amuse me I guess.
I am a layman, not a lawyer. Lawyers thing differently, and are
used to long periods of waiting. If I had come across something
like that in a basement in Washington, and done my little
sketch, I'd be talking to everyone and anybody about what I had
seen. Now explain it away to me, that I'm just a lawyer, I
think differently, and things take a long time. Why would you
have just not gone public with that?

DS: Well that is interesting. That's a perfectly logical
question. At the time when I was in Washington D.C. the things
that I realized being the general counsel for the Jesuit
Headquarters is that you actually bring information to the
proper authority and try to make the legal system work the way
it is supposed to work. It took quite some time for me to
realize that really it was necessary to go out to the people,
and have the people mobilize, rise up against the major
institution, and try to force them to do what they were doing.
I had come into Washington in 1975, and I was still operating
in 1976 and 1977 very much under the idea that we can get these
legal institutions to work. Since we had the new President, and
I understood that the President knew about this stuff, that he
had actually seen one, and that he was going to get copies of
this report, that I was anticipating that it was going to start
to work. When I was working on the Karen Silkwood case, I was
out in Oklahoma most of the time doing depositions regularly,
running professional investigators in the field, into a major
confrontation with the Central Intelligence Agency over the
potential smuggling of plutonium out of these facilities, I got
kind of swept up in all of that stuff, and I was really very
much buried in much of that stuff for the next couple of years.
I was surprised frankly, that nothing came out of the White
House, and the Executive Branch. Basically the time sort of
passed for that sort of key piece of information to come out. I
was waiting for some stuff to happen. I talked to people about
it, informally when I would see them. That's one of the reasons
when people contacted me to talk to John Mack about
representing him, I immediately agreed to do that.

SDI: Daniel, you obviously carry with you a great deal of
credibility - the cases you have been involved with, the whole
Silkwood thing, incredible. Hollywood movies and so forth have
come from what you have worked on. Given who you have talked
to, what you have been privy to in the way of statements from
individuals, documents, pictures, the information that came to
you as a result of people trusting your credibility, what do
you believe?

DS: (pause) Interesting. Actually, I believe that we are going
to have a major private professional investigation sponsored by
the UFO community that I am going to get to play a fairly major
part in, I hope. Therefore I need to remain open to what
exactly is going on. I did make a presentation to the
International UFO Congress at Laughlin (March 2000) setting
forth what I thought were 7 or 8 different potential
explanations for the various phenomena that are going on, and
rather than saying that I came to the conclusion that any one
of them was true, to the exclusion of others, I believed that
some percentage of incidents that have been reported are
probably attributable to different phenomena. I laid that out
for them at the Congress, as a preliminary view of what were
the areas that I thought really needed to be investigated. What
potentials really needed to be looked at with potential
explanations for various aspects of this phenomena. Now that
having been said, in general, what I believe - I believe that a
substantial portion of the very up close sightings where you
get to see a vehicle that's absolutely clear, that it isn't
just a mistaken light of some sort. I think that a substantial
plurality of these are in fact vehicles from an
extraterrestrial civilization, and I believe that they probably
have a means of transporting themselves, which in fact exceeds
the speed of light, and for that reason they would appear to be
almost other dimensional. Because when they come out of that
mode of transport they appear to sort of materialize and
dematerialize from that realm. So what some people think makes
these being extra-dimensional being, my opinion is that some of
them are in fact extraterrestrial

The report that Marcia showed me on extraterrestrial phenomena
actually stated that it was the conclusion of the Library of
Congress Science and Technology Division that from 2 to 6, at
least, other highly intelligent, technologically developed
civilizations exist right within our own galaxy. Now they based
this upon the Drake's equation, in working out various
probabilities. They are increasing every day now that we
discover that other star systems outside of our own star system
where planets exist. We have discovered evidence of water in
other solar systems now. I think that it's clear that these
civilizations exist, and the only question is a fact question,
whether or not they have been capable of developing a mode of
transportation that exceeds the speed of light. I believe that
they have.

SDI: That is fascinating information that we have here on our
desk this evening for this radio program. The House Space
Science committee, information coming and statements being made
among the advances and discoveries at least 50 planets have
been found in orbit around distant sun-like stars in the last
five years, and researchers now believe those systems may be
common through out the system. Finding planets was considered
an essential step to finding life of course, and that is being
done.

DS: I was with my two sons, the night before last, and I said "
It's just amazing. You can tell your great grandchildren that
you were alive right at the time when they discovered other
planets outside of our solar system. Now that's just an
extraordinary step for human beings to take. My son said to me
"Well, that will probably be dwarfed by the fact that we will
probably establish contact with a whole extraterrestrial
civilization." I said, "Ya, you're probably right. That's
probably true."

The big discoveries we are making here each (part of line
missing to turn tape)

SDI: Can you stay for 10 to 15 minutes after the news?

DS: Ya. My wife has agreed to stand by to wait to go out to
dinner tonight. So I have agreed to do that.

SDI: We'll just keep you for another 10 or 15 minutes. Good
stuff. Dan how did you get hooked-up with the Disclosure
Project?

DS: Well, I just got called by Steven Greer, and he asked if I
would participate in it and I have been trying over the last
year or so to make myself available to each of the major groups
that have been involved in the UFO issue, such as the
International UFO Congress, MUFON, Steven Greer's group, Dr.
John Mack, and others on a kind of an equal basis, so that I
can demonstrate I am open to talking to people from all points
of view, and actually establish a level of confidence in our
relationships together. We can try and draw the people
together, and share information, and work together in a common
investigation.

SDI: Daniel, perhaps this is the development that we have been
waiting for without many of us realizing that that is it. We
have been hoping for some critical mass to occur, so that this
can become public legitimate and properly researched and
uncovered as it were. I think to date it has been the hopes of
many that there would be enough sightings, that there would be
video footage, that there would be enough multiple person
experiences, that someone would have to admit to this. The kind
of critical mass that seems to be coming to the fore now is the
critical mass that well noted, well-respected learned
individuals who are now saying, "I am stepping into this
arena." People such as yourself. That kind of critical mass is
very, very exciting to hear someone such as you say what you
said before we broke for news - "I believe this is real." That
is incredibly exciting.

DS: I think that also the ability of people in our generation,
our post war generation, to actually conduct ourselves in a
responsible and civil manner towards each other, even though
different people have different points of view. To avoid being
scurrilous and antagonistic towards each other is also part of
the coming of age that really entitles a movement of this sort
to receive the type of respect that is going to be necessary in
order to get people in high positions of responsibility, both
civilian and military to come forward, and to be willing to
participate. I have hear many people say, "I don't want to go
near that, because they are going to chew you up and kill you."
They are not talking about any secret government official. They
are talking about the people in the movement itself. I am
hoping that this can in fact be a very important crossing that
we make together, and avoid picking on each other's points of
view, and try to share different perspectives to that we can
come to a collective of what is really going on here.

SDI: You are very diplomatic but the bottom line is that the
UFO community as a whole has a nasty habit of eating it's young
and stabbing each other in the back.

DS: Well I just think that what we have to do is that we come
to participate. We have to be aware of the fact that this is a
risk that we all take when we come into this area, but if we
are able to smile and kind of pass aside those kinds of shots
taken, and be civil and be respectful of everyone, and try and
get people to come together at a common event such as this big
MUFON gathering on July 19, 20, 21, and 22nd down in Irvine. If
people will come to those things, and say look we are all here
and we've got 5,6, or 8 of the top major participants in these
investigations. Why don't we try an form some kind of common
coalition here, without anyone being the chief of the thing.
Why don't we try and work together. I think that this type of
collegial decision making, where we take responsibility for
ourselves- not be dependant upon some military authority,
government official, or even the President of the United States
to come forward and spoon feed us this information, is the type
of responsibility that may well be what is essential for us to
demonstrate the type of worthiness that is necessary in order
to be prepared for this information.

SDI: Excellent point. So in summation, for your moments here
with us this evening, what next? Other than the Irvine
symposium.

DS: Well, I hope that what we will do is come to an insight
that we pool our resources together and actually sponsor. I
pointed out before when I was on the Art Bell show, a tribunal
which we can actually bring forth and marshal our evidence. Put
it forward in a way that is admissible, with present rules of
federal civil procedure, that we act responsibly in this way,
that we try to do this in a way that will encourage people who
have opposing points of view to those that are held by the UFO
community in general to come forward to try and represent the
other side in a responsible and respectful way, and that we can
subject the various witnesses to cross-examination and to
testing of their evidence. We can then bring on federal judges
who will sit in judgement of this. We can empanel a real jury,
who can participate in listening to this information, that it
can be broadcast over radio and television, or web cast over
the Internet so that people can witness this type of major
event, so that we can bring the information forward in the most
responsible and careful way that we can, and then watch the
jury deliberate. We can actually have cameras, live cameras in
the room to see regular citizens deliberating on the
respectability of the respective witnesses, the different
pieces of evidence, and see what kind of conclusion that we can
come to here.

SDI: Yes, if we are still not being told, or the information is
not forthcoming then what do we accomplish with all that? Those
that hold the details, hold the evidence, military, government,
whatever, even despite that sort of arena.

DS: Well we have experience that in the past, as you know. The
government withheld the information about the dangers of
nuclear power, it withheld the information about Watergate, it
withheld the information about Iran-Contra. You know the entire
Iran-Contra hearings were brought, the government official
hearings, about only because we as citizens mobilized and
prepared this information and brought it forward in a
completely comprehensive way. They were finding themselves
getting behind the power curve, so they had to respond. You
know Ed Meese, the Attorney General, under Ronald Reagan. The
only reason he ever asked for the appointment of a special
prosecutor was because it was getting out of control. I think
that is what we really need to do, kind of a citizens
initiative utilizing the standard rules of federal civil
procedures in a kind of sophistication that we have learned as
a collective community to utilize. That is the exact type of
procedure that we need to undertake. If the government chooses
to try to respond to it in some way, then that is fine. We will
provide a forum for them, to come forward and participate in
such a process. It is very much like Harvard Law School when I
began at Harvard in 1967. We as a studentry organized the Joint
Student Faculty Committee at Harvard Law School. There was no
faculty on it, because they wouldn't gain to participate in it,
in the kind of sharing of authority to make decisions. Yet,
after two full years of holding meetings, the faculty at
Harvard found it absolutely essential that they come forward
and participate, because they were losing their authority and
power. So I think we need to have sort of a citizens diplomacy
program coming forward, where we take responsibility for these
decisions ourselves. You know, the fact of the matter is, there
are images where 500 or 600 Jewish people would sit there with
two German soldiers holding guns on them, and leading them into
a German prison camp. If people would only rise up, and take
control of their own lives. We cannot be coerced like this.
What I think we need to do is mobilize people, utilize the
training that our two-post war generations are the most widely
educated educations in the history of our human family. We
don't have to sit back and wait for someone like the king, or
the pope, or someone like this to tell us this information. We
can get this information ourselves, if we are willing to take
the responsibility ourselves.

SDI: The time to move forward and take advantage of the
inevitable critical mass situation.

DS: Right. Absolutely.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                        Pflock's 'Roswell - A Review

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:06:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:06:39 -0400
Subject: Pflock's 'Roswell - A Review



From: UFO UpDates


Source: Scan by ebk

The Toronto Sunday Sun,

Sunday, July 15th 2001

Showcase - Page 23


ROSWELL
By Karl 1. Pflock
Prometheus Books

Before we delve into this, here is some thing you must know
about Karl T. Pflock aside from the fact he has a funny name.
He served as a CIA officer and a former deputy assistant
secretary of defence, and is considered an expert on
Unidentified Flying Objects.

And with that in mind we take you to Roswell, N.M., where, in
1947, some will have you believe a flying saucer crashed,
killing its extraterrestrial crew. As legend has it, the U.S.
Army recovered the saucer and bodies and hid them beneath a tarp
of cover stories, witness intimidation, super-secret research
projects and lord knows what else.

There are sufficient witnesses, classified documents and books
and movies produced on the subject that quite a number of folks
believe it happened.

But not Karl T. Pflock. He does believe we have been visited
time and again by critters from other worlds, but spent
eight years researching the subject and concludes that all the
fooferaw over Roswell is really about nothing more than an
out-and-out fairy tale.

Of course, there�s always the possibility Pflock is an alien
hiding behind an assumed identity to make us believe the Roswell
story is baloney and... well, we�ll let you decide.


Jerry Gladman
Toronto Sun








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                          Voyager Newsletter No. 18

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:11:57 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:12:10 -0400
Subject: Voyager Newsletter No. 18



Voyager Newsletter No. 18


CONTENTS

1. 'Socorro 64' - An Appraisal of the Hot-air Balloon
Explanation.

2. The RAF Woodbridge UFO Hoax!


'SOCORRO 64' - AN APPRAISAL OF THE HOT-AIR BALLOON EXPLANATION

[...]

The intention of this newsletter is to collate and summarise the
facts which have been revealed by those endeavours and
specifically respond to a rebuttal by Richard Hall, whose latest
book 'The UFO Evidence Volume II' has recently been published.

Needless to say, Hall considers events at Socorro as amongst the
most convincing that 'alien visitation' has long been a reality.

Central to developments in unravelling the mystery is a
recognition, first spotted by Larry Robinson from Indiana, that
the object which Zamora came across was possibly a hot-air
balloon.

The first, modern hot-air balloon flight took place on 10
October, 1960 and by April of 1964, there were only twenty or so
hot-air balloons in the entire United States.

Hall charges that, "We 'believers in ET' at least do our
homework" and submits "A few pertinent facts from the various
investigation reports with regard to the balloon hypothesis".

There are nine main points which Hall presents and I will address
each in turn. Hall's remarks are quoted at the beginning.

[...]

That is indeed some loud balloon and it's one amongst a number of
elementary facts which seem to have eluded Hall's homework.

[...]

Before inferring too much, it may be advisable to heed Zamora's
acknowledgement that during this momentary, 'two second' first
view, "I didn't pay much attention to what it was".

Not exactly the most auspicious beginning for such a landmark
sighting.

[...]

Therefore, the entire duration of Zamora's clearest sighting was
three steps forward and one glance backwards.

That's it. Once he had run up the hill, beyond his police car,
Zamora was minus his prescription glasses and until he put them
on again, any further observations have to be considered
unreliable.

Not that he really saw much else.

[...]

At what time, after the object had began its slanting departure,
did Chavez reach the vicinity. If we knew that, it would indicate
how long the object was visible and provide key evidence of its
likely airspeed.

Stanford doesn't document this.

Thankfully, Coral Lorenzen did.

She writes:

"It was ascending at a very shallow angle, approximately twenty
feet off the ground, when it cleared the dynamite shack. Zamora
then ran to his car, called headquarters and asked the people
there to look into the southwest and see what they could see.
Just three minutes later Sgt Chavez pulled his patrol car to a
stop on the mesa and Zamora hurried toward him".

If our 'UFO' was still visible some three minutes after the Lopez
call - which was one/two or more minutes from that instant when
it had taken off again - this furthermore attests why its
departure wasn't quite so rapid as some have claimed.

[...]

If it was a hot air balloon, then any landing would not have been
a 'touchdown' and the balloon's platform is likely to have
dragged along the ground, even for a short distance.

At this time, it seems that an extremely basic, rectangular
wooden or metal platform with 'railings' was gradually being
superseded by the more familiar wicker basket.

The 'official' case investigator was Dr J. Allen Hynek, former
Chairman of the Astronomy Department at Northwestern University
and who became a consultant for the US Air Force's 'Project Blue
Book'.

In a private memo dated 20 May, 1964, Hynek wrote that, contrary
to the landing marks being 'impressions', they were in fact, "4
rectangular scrapings as if a rectangular object had scraped
along digging into the ground" and that "the gouging was done
away from the center in every case".

[...]

Interestingly, Coral Lorenzen describes comparative 'UFO'
sightings in that period:

"Other tales of objects similar in appearance, which 'buzzed'
cars and homes in the general area from Las Cruces north to
Albuquerque along the Rio Grande river, seem to support the
evidence that strange objects were flying and landing there".

I can disclose that those classified, hot-air balloon test
flights were launched from a site on the banks of the Rio Grande,
north of Albuquerque.

[...]

Accordingly, it seems there was no scientific, local, 'wind
direction' data obtained, or available.

[...]

Hall proclaims of those who have re-examined the Socorro case:

"If you are not familiar with the research literature on old
'classic' cases, you have no business trying to debunk them.
Socorro was investigated by the Army, Air Force, FBI, police, and
civilians (including NICAP) quite thoroughly, and was fully
reported in the local newspaper".

Readers of this newsletter are invited to decide for themselves
whether those thorough investigations ever recognised, examined
and dismissed the possibility of a hot-air balloon and if Hall's
reasoning why the hot-air balloon explanation is itself debunked,
now exceeds the evidence otherwise.


THE RAF WOODBRIDGE UFO HOAX!

Developments in the equally classic December 1980 RAF
Bentwaters/RAF Woodbridge [twin base] or 'Rendlesham forest'
[which separated the bases] 'UFO' case continues to produce new
witnesses, new evidence and some startling surprises...

[...]

"I had no idea that this 'incident' existed until last night.
Naturally, it has been about the only thing I've been thinking
about since then, and the more I go over this 20 year old memory,
the more things I remember".

"One is about the kid that was working the [east] gate on the
first incident, and whom I played the joke on. I don't remember
his name, but he was a Security troop. Security worked the back
gate during late hours even though gates were normally the
responsibility of the LE [Law Enforcement] flight".

"That post was not a well liked one, and MSgt Ball did not
usually assign his favourite troops to that post".

"This particular kid was afraid of the dark, noises, etc. He was
constantly calling for the patrol to swing by. That patrolman was
usually me. I was the second ranking man on the LE Flight. The
ranking man was the flight chief, and worked on Bentwaters, while
the number 2 man usually worked as the only LE patrol on
Woodbridge".

"Anyway, I remember having to constantly go out to that gate and
hold this guy's hand. He was a perfect target for a practical
joke. Our jokes were not malicious, but they did tend to be
inventive and aimed at those troops that were most likely to fall
for them. This guy was definitely like to fall for it, as he did
- like a ton of bricks".

[...]

"Were there other UFO hoaxes? I don't know of any, but it is
entirely possible. It was a good stunt. Someone else could have
repeated it. In fact, most good cop practical jokes did get
repeated. We had some classics - sending someone out for 100 feet
of flight line to rope off an area. Sending someone out for a
gallon of prop wash to clean patrol car windows with, sending
someone to the emergency room for a box of fallopian tubes for
the breathalyzer, etc.".

"We used at least three flashlights pointing upwards rolled up in
the windows of the patrol car. These lights were red, blue,
green, and possibly amber. The patrol car itself had the American
style square red and blue emergency rack on top with revolving
high intensity red and blue lights. It also had bright white
alley lights - these are lights that point to the side in order
to light up buildings as you drive past them at night. It also
had a bright white spotlight that I pointed as close to straight
up as I could. I had everything except my headlights on. All of
our vehicles, both Security and Law Enforcement had the same or
similar equipment".

"The flashlights, which were green, and maybe amber, where
nowhere as bright as the red, blue and white emergency lights,
which really lit up the night".

"One of the lights directed upwards was the patrol car's
spotlight. It is a very bright light that throws a beam a long
way".

"The night I did it I remember it as slightly foggy, probably low
lying fog. The lights lit the fog quite nicely, I should think
making a nice halo effect. The fog was, in fact, critical for my
prank, as you could see the light beams. Try shining a bright
spotlight in fog - you get the light sabre effect".
[END OF EXTRACT]


The complete newsletter is available from:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/v18.txt
[END]


That detailed, and often little known, evidence featured in the
above 'Socorro' publication, plus what is about to be fully
revealed in the imminent, latest 'Voyager' newsletter, is a
result of considerable research which did preclude any further
participation in UpDates discussions.

The 'Rendlesham hoax' story is a cracker! I'm about to explain it
in detail. Typical of 'Rendlesham', it's arguable whether this is
definitive evidence, however, the claims made by former SMSgt
Kevin Conde, which I have permission to publish, are that
proverbial 'cat amongst the pigeons' and I expect will prove to
be both fundamental and controversial.

I would only conclude this pivotal 'UFO' case will, 'never be the
same again'.

The above newsletter is, as they say, an intentional 'leak' which
'prepares the ground' for a significant announcement.

Aside from which, some might say it's intended [but _not_ too
seriously], as with the impending 'Socorro' developments noted,
to give 'true believers' a few sleepless nights. ;)


Best wishes,

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








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                            El Chupacabra Lives!

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:27:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:07:30 -0400
Subject: El Chupacabra Lives!


El Chupacabra Lives! could spawn future cryptozoology cinema

[Thanks to Robert Goerman, Craig Williams, and Amie Williams for
passing this news along.]

-----

Source: http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/301320p1.html

Film Force 12
July 2001

El Chupacabra Lives!

The legend of the blood-sucking beast, the chupacabra, comes to
the big screen!

by Brian Linder

2001-07-12

Watch out! El chupacabra is coming!  According to today's
Variety, Joe Roth's Revolution Studios will bring the legendary
chupacabra to the big screen.

The chupacabra � which means "goat sucker" when translated
literally � is a creature born out of Puerto Rican folklore that
is known for sucking the blood out of animals.  While the
creature has never been captured, animal corpses with
unexplained neck wounds and drained of all blood have been found
for over thirty years.  Reports of similar attacks have been
documented in Latin America, and as far North as the
Southwestern U.S.

Revolution Studios has hired screenwriter Ravel
Centeno-Rodriguez (The Thirteenth Floor) to pen Bloodlust:
Legend of the Chupacabra.

Eyewitness accounts during a series of Puerto Rican attacks in
1995 describe the creature as having a "reptilian body, oval
head, bulging red eyes, fanged teeth and long, darting tongue."
Some think it's the result of genetic experiments done on
vampire bats, others believe it could be extraterrestrial.

In a recent expos on the chupacabra, The Learning Channel
interviewed America's leading cryptozoologist (cryptozoology is
the study of animals that may or may not exist) Loren Coleman on
the matter.  He calls the chupacabra "the single most notable
cryptozoological phenomenon of the past decade."

"What's unique about the Chupacabra is that it's crossing
languages, which I think shows how small our world is getting,"
says Coleman. "It's sort of like Jennifer Lopez, kind of
cross-cultural."  Now there's a comparison I never thought I'd
live to see!  It might not be such a bad casting idea either.
They could just dress her like they did in The Cell.

It wouldn't surprise me if we saw a rash of films spring up
featuring other as-yet-undiscovered creatures like the yeti,
sasquatch, and the Loch Ness monster, which could be pretty
cool!


� Brian Linder believes 90% of Bigfoot sightings are just
FilmForce's Glen Oliver out for a walk.

----

An artist's rendition of El Chupacabra









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:21:43 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:52:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Young


 >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:19:33 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:27:33 -0000


 >I'm also willing to play "you show me yours and I'll show you
 >mine" with his alien symbols. I'll send him a copy of the ones I
 >saw for a copy of the ones he saw. It would be interesting to
 >see if there are any 'matches' among them. I can't believe he's
 >had those symbols since 1977 and hasn't shared them with anyone.

John, Dick:

He didn't realize the importance of the "data", John.

 >Errol, act as an intermediary and propose my 'swap' idea to him.
 >We could both send you copies of our "alien symbols" and you can
 >send them out to each of us simultaneously. No chance for sneak
 >peeks. :)  You can also report to the list if there are any
 >correspondences between them. Wadda ya tink?

A good idea.  I would like to see his hand sketch of the "data" of
the Century.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

              Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:04:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:54:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Blanton


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:17:47 -0000

<snip>

 >Finally, does that snowy "crashed saucer" scene with soldiers in
 >parkas standing around it sound familiar to anyone?

LOL! Yep, "The Secrety UFO Files of the KGB", a TNT special.
Read all about it (with pictures):

http://www.sightings.com/ufo/russ1969crash.htm


Regards,

Terry










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:55:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:56:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:37:30 -0300

<snip>

Stan,

I've honestly forgotten:

How many crash sites were there, then?

Where were they located?

Which ones had bodies?

Did they all have the same type of debris?

Did they all have the same type of bodies?


TIA,

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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

              Re: Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:06:53 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:58:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript - Hall


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 15 Jul 2001 20:11:12 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript

 >Interview with Daniel Sheehan July 14, 2001

 >'Strange Days....Indeed'

 >with

 >Errol Bruce-Knapp and Scott Robins

 >Transcribed by Grant Cameron

Grant and list,

I have read this transcript very carefully, and it convinces me
beyond the shadow of a doubt that Sheehan, despite good
intentions, has totally misunderstood the CRS/UFO situation in
1976. The two CRS reports he talks about were published about
that time and there was or is absolutely nothing secret about
them.

Obviously, he happened to meet Marcia Smith just at the time she
was working on these two (basically survey and biblography)
well-known reports for CRS and just as obviously made the false
assumption that they were classified or secret in some way; I
note he doesn't claim specifically here that they were secret.
He assumed it was all a much bigger deal than it really was.
Smith would have a natural interest in trying to obtain any UFO
information that might be in Vatican files.

Same with Carter, whose interest in UFOs was openly known at the
time. Carter may well have been interested in what CRS was going
to publish, but it wasn't anything special prepared for Carter.
The whole story of being shown what sounds suspiciously like the
standard Project Blue Book files (except for the "crashed
saucer" photo, and there may be an explanation for that)
indicates clear misperception and misunderstanding on Sheehan's
part.

Note that they are no longer Air Force guards but security
guards in civilian clothes, which make a lot more sense. Any
highly classified material would not be handled in such a
cavalier fashion. Note that Sheehan had no security clearance,
was not asked to sign anything, was allowed to rummage freely
through this "highly classified" information. Note that none of
the information had any security markings on it. What does any
reasonable person conclude? It wasn't highly classified
information, and Sheehan simply was assuming all sorts of things
that were not true.

I don't doubt that the JPL briefing took place, and it makes
more sense now that I realize Sheehan has a divinity degree and
was working within a religious framework. It also makes some
sense as a sort of payback for lobbying for SETI.

I applaud Sheehan's willingness to participate in getting UFO
information released, but I wince at his naivete in many areas.
In the UFO field there are scientifically oriented, scholarly,
sensible people on the one hand, and on the other hand New Age
believers, kooks, frauds, and con-men and ne'er the twain shall
meet. I hope Sheehan wakes up to the realities and reorients
himself or else his efforts will go nowhere and will be only a
waste of his time.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

               Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:27:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:00:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Velez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:17:47 -0000

 >List,

 >I just came across an interview with Daniel Sheehan that I had
 >missed before, by Vicki Ecker in UFO Magazine, Oct/Nov 2000. It
 >states that Sheehan's entrance into the UFO field "[involves]
 >the creation of a corporation to disperse funds on behalf of UFO
 >disclosure... the named principals, who, besides Sheehan,
 >include attorney Peter Gersten, Alfred Webre... lobbyist Steve
 >Bassett and Michael Brownlee." The latter is the only name I
 >don't recognize.

 >The now familiar CRS story is recounted, but with a few
 >intersting twists. He describes what sounds very much like the
 >standard Project Blue Book microfilm files, and in them he found
 >the snowy, "crashed saucer" scene.

 >His description of dealings with Marcia Smith and many other
 >points sound suspiciously to me as if he is reading into what
 >actually happened and superimposing some inaccurate
 >interpretations. But I am trying to gather more data to clarify
 >a number of points. A few questions (I'll have more to say
 >later): Did anyone hear Sheehan on Strange Days... Indeed last
 >Saturday? I was not able to hear it. Maybe it will be on the
 >station archives eventually.

 >Does anyone know who Brownlee is? Has an actual corporation been
 >formed? (If so, its papers should be available to the public.)
 >Has anyone asked the Jesuit National Headquarters in Washington,
 >D.C, their side of the story in regard to requested access to
 >alleged Vatican UFO files?

 >I note in this interview Sheehan says he was invited to address
 >JPL about the "theological implications of the search for
 >extraterrestrial intelligence." (A lawyer?)

Hi Dick, hi All,

You inquired:

 >Finally, does that snowy "crashed saucer" scene with soldiers in
 >parkas standing around it sound familiar to anyone?

Yes it does. But oddly enough it isn't an "American" story! There
was a program called, "The KGB Files" (I think it was narrated by
actor Roger Moore, aka, 'The Saint') that documented a host of
Russian UFO cases.

One of the cases featured on the program was a saucer crash.
They showed film footage of a small (maybe ten feet across) disc
that had crashed near a tree-line and was upturned and partially
covered in snow. There are many Russian soldiers in attendance
and they are all wearing 'winter gear'. Hooded overcoats with
the hoods lined in fur just as Dan Sheehan describes.

The case (and the footage) were from the 60's so it's possible
that Sheehan may have been looking at single frame captures from
that Russian footage. Although I don't know how anybody could
mistake those Russian military uniforms (some of the officers
were wearing those "Big top" military hats that they use over
there) for American military garb.

It's the only case I can think of that fits the description
provided by Sheehan. Unless somebody is aware or an identical
case involving American military personnel, this Russian footage
is the only thing that even comes close to what Dan Sheehan
recalls seeing.

"Corporation" eh? I wonder if they file under "non-profit"
status! Somehow I doubt it. <LOL>


Regards,

John Velez









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                  40th Anniversary Of The Hill's Abduction

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:23:24 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:03:55 -0400
Subject: 40th Anniversary Of The Hill's Abduction


The Hill abduction 40th anniversary is coming up soon -
September 19.

Are there any plans to 'celebrate'? Maybe, meet in Portsmouth
for the weekend?

Of course, '40 Earth cycles' means nothin' to them Alienz, but
who knows, maybe we'd even get lucky and see somethin'...












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

               Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:52:16 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:05:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Young

 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:17:47 -0000

<snip>

 >Finally, does that snowy "crashed saucer" scene with soldiers in
 >parkas standing around it sound familiar to anyone?

Dick, List:

Maybe he is trying to get in on the Kecksburg Crash Fun. He says
the thing had strange symbols, was at the end of a forrow and a
little gulley, had somebody in winter clothes, etc.

Problem is, the Dec 9, 1965, Kecksburg crash allegedly was in
woods, I don't think there was snow on the ground. Oh well,
maybe the story will change, now that we have another
"eyewitness".

Of course Sheehan assured us that he didn't realize the
importance of this "data" (his hand sketched tracing) until now.

Yawn.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                      Request On Behalf Of An Abductee

From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:01:50 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:59:40 -0400
Subject: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee


Hi all,

I have had a person contact us through our CUFON web site saying
that she has been experiencing very disturbing incidents she
describes as "attacks," that she believes are connected with
alien entities, and has asked us to help.

I did ask whether she had sought help thorough normal medical
channels, but she indicates that she had already "... tried
several healers and tried contacting alien abduction
organizations all so far have failed. I recently worked with a
pastor..." all to no apparent avail. She is asking for help
ending the attacks. This woman's pain sounds quite real.

Any suggestions as to what I might suggest to this person; who
might I refer her to in the Pasadena CA area?

Contact me off list if you'd rather.


Jim Klotz

jklotz77@foxinternet.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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:01:03 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:02:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Morris


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:24:59 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >
 >
 > >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 > >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 > >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:55:57 -0700

Kevin,

I'm sure Ed will respond here in full when he returns from the
short trip I believe he's currently on, but..

 >I have seen the debris footage and I have looked at if very
 >carefully, and I see the word "video" in a string of other
 >symbols. It jumps out at you and because I can see it doesn't
 >make it a lie to say that I see it. And I see that you agree
 >that there are some symbols/letters that resemble the word
 >video... so how can this be "close to a lie" if you can see the
 >same thing yourself? And isn't that language a bit strong?
 >can we put the silly "video" red herring to bed once and for all.

For any interested parties, please look at :

http://www.thefortworthphotographs.freeserve.co.uk/images/beam-syms-composite-1.
jpg

Yes, given a stretch of the imagination the 3rd symbol could be
taken as a lower case d but symbol 1 (from the left) is actually
a triangle and angled bar not a V, symbol 2 _could_ be read as
an uppercase I (mix of cases?) but symbol 4 isn't an E, rather
it's 3 horizontal's with a centre vertical bar and symbols 5 and
6 are far from simple O characters and what of symbols 7, 8 and
9?. Seeing the generic shape similarities to known letter shapes
in the English language is on a par with seeing a butterfly in
an ink blot and in this case doesn't take account of the
remaining 4 symbols in the rest of the visible sequence.

In the FW debris images symbol sequences appear grouped, one
assumes in word structures, see:

http://www.thefortworthphotographs.freeserve.co.uk/images/rmybmhix.jpg

(warning this is a large file even in .jpg format 400k)

Taking this premise, and as some symbols can now be shown to be
shared between the debris seen in the AA film and JBJ's FW
debris images (shared symbols possibly = shared debris origin)
we could seem to be dealing therefore with a word structure of
at least 9 symbols on the "video" beam.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                        Discovery Channel Documentary

From: Jason Ciaccia <jciaccia@atlasmediacorp.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:01:15 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:20:41 -0400
Subject: Discovery Channel Documentary


I am an Associate Producer on a documentary about Sleep
Paralysis for the Discovery Channel.

We are producing a quality documentary for The Discovery Channel
that will explore various nocturnal and other "paranormal"
attacks, including alien abduction.

We are seeking people who are open to sharing their dramatic
stories of alien abduction or abduction-like experiences. We
recognize and appreciate the incredibly personal and at times
traumatic nature of these experiences. We will therefore
approach their re-telling - and participants - with sensitivity.

If you are willing to share your experiences and perhaps be
interviewed on camera, please email Jason Ciaccia at:

jciaccia@atlasmediacorp.com

Please note your geographical location in your reply and give us
some sense of the nature of your alien abduction experiences.
Note that we are contacting many potential participants. We will
attempt to respond to everyone but apologize if we are not able
to get back in touch with you personally.


Kind regards and appreciation,

Cheryl Houser
Producer


Jason Ciaccia
Associate Producer










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                 Re: Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:41:23 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:11:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 15 Jul 2001 20:11:12 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Sheehan On SDI - 07-14-01 - Transcript


 >Interview with Daniel Sheehan July 14, 2001

<snip>

 >[The interview began with a short clip of Sheehan recounting his
 >experience of seeing classified materials in the basement of a
 >building of the Library of Congress in 1977]

This is contradicted by Sheehan's actual comments (below) saying
he never saw any classification markings on any of the
documents.

 >SDI: That was a clip that we played from your last appearance
 >with us. Were the documents that they showed you... were they
 >identified in any way? Were there classification marks on them?

 >DS: ... The photographs didn't have any
 >classification markings on them. They were in these little
 >metal containers, almost like little film canisters. They
 >didn't have any classification stamps or documents on them.

<snip>

 >"Her
 >name is Marcia Smith, and she is the director of the science and
 >technology division of the Library of Congress's Congressional
 >Research Service.

<snip>

 >I was pleasantly surprised to find that in her official
 >capacity as director of the Official Congressional Research
 >Service, that she had been asked by the United States Congress
 >to do this investigation.
<snip>

Marcia Smith was never the "director" of the CRS! And never even
the "director" of the "science and technology division" of the
CRS. The actual head of what was actually then called the
Science Policy Research Division of the CRS was Dr Charles S.
Sheldon II. This is very sloppy handling of the basic facts
about the CRS.

Today, Marcia Smith is a Specialist in Aerospace and
Telecommunications Policy in the CRS.

 >It turned out that President Carter, then in 1977, when he had
 >actually come into office. It turned out that President Carter
 >had had a sighting when he was still governor of Georgia. He
 >and a number of other people had seen a UFO and he had written
 >an official report and asked that it be investigated. So it
 >turned out that when he came to the Presidency, he had actually
 >asked to have the information regarding the existence of
 >extraterrestrial intelligence and the UFO phenomena sent to
 >him. This procedure of asking the United States Congress - The
 >Science and Technology Committee of the House of
 >Representatives to have the Science and Technology Division of
 >the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service gather
 >all this information together and make a determination about
 >what information was going to be released to the public and
 >how much was going to be made available to congress could be
 >made in that context.

There is no mention here of CIA Director Bush allegedly
stonewalling President Carter on the latter's request for CIA
UFO info, and no mention that the CRS was supposed to request
the CIA to declassify UFO documents. These are contrary-to-fact
elements of Sheehan's story that he simply drops now instead of
explaining.

 >So it was in that context that I was talking to Marcia Smith
 >and Marcia asked me whether as General Counsel to the United
 >States Jesuit Headquarters, there at their National Office in
 >Washington D.C., whether or not I could get access to the
 >section of the Vatican library in Rome that would contain this
 >information - any information that the church had on
 >extraterrestrial intelligence and the UFO phenomena.

 >I was very pleased to try to do that. So I asked Father Bill
 >Davis, who was the Director of the National Office at that time
 >(1977) if I could follow that process of trying to get that
 >information from the Vatican. He gave me his official
 >approval, so I undertook that process, but much to my surprise
 >in fact, and much to the surprise of Father Davis I might add,
 >we were refused access to that particular portion of the
 >Vatican Library. So I sent back a second letter to the Jesuit
 >who was the head of the Vatican library, and explained to him
 >that this was an official request that had come from the
 >Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress -
 >that it had come from the Congress of the United States, and
 >that the President himself had wanted to get this information.
<snip>

Well here is an alleged paper trail that should confirm at least
part of Sheehan's story: Let Sheehan produce a copy of his 2nd
letter to the Vatican, evidently in 1977 or thereabouts,
mentioning that President Carter had initiated this
extraordinary request for UFO information.

I had not previously understood that Carter had said anything
about Vatican UFO data, but maybe all Sheehan was doing was
trying to invoke a VIP to help persuade the Vatican to relent.

 >Shortly after the full funding was reinstated for the SETI
 >project. I was then asked. Marcia called me from the Library of
 >Congress, telling me that the scientists at the Jet Propulsion
 >Laboratory, in the SETI program, wanted to have me give them a
 >seminar out at JPL talking about the potential theological
 >religious implications of potential contact with
 >extraterrestrial civilizations.

Why on earth would Sheehan need "classified" UFO files in order
to discuss the "potential theological religious implications" of
ETI contact with SETI people? That doesn't even really require
UFO reports at all, classified or not, because it is a
hypothetical discussion of a "potential" event, not of any real
event that had already occurred. But if it did, it certainly
didn't necessitate "classified" UFO reports -- unless Sheehan's
real objective was to find proof of ET's in the classified files
so that he could announce that to JPL. Strange that news of it
never leaked out.

Even stranger still is Sheehan's failure to mention what if
anything from his "classified" (?) BB file search was included
in his 3-hour JPL briefing. Did he tell JPL about the saucer
crash photos and the strange symbols (see below)?

 >I was delighted to do that, so I said to Marcia "Look if I am
 >going to be doing this, which I am totally delighted to do, I
 >would like to be able to get access to some of the data that
 >you might have available in the course of your doing this
 >investigation for the Science and Technology Committee in
 >Congress.

 >So she said, "Well what would you like to see?" It didn't take
 >me a second to tell her what I wanted. I would like to see the
 >classified sections of the Project Blue Book. Well, she said
 >that she didn't know whether the Air Force and the Department
 >of Defense would agree to release these to the Library of
 >Congress, but she would try. So she contacted them and shortly
 >thereafter she called me and she said, much to her surprise,
 >"They have agreed to do this."

Project Blue Book was not a book or a thing that one could see
"classified sections" of in a microfilm viewer.

 >Again I have people about this a number of times. There were
 >these photographs of unmistakable - of a UFO sitting on the
 >ground. It had crashed, apparently. It had hit into this field
 >and had dug up, kind of plowed this kind of trough through this
 >field. It was wedged into the side of this bank. There was snow
 >all around the picture. The vehicle was wedged into the side of
 >this mud like embankment kind of up at an angle. There were Air
 >Force personnel. As I cranked the little handle, and looked at
 >additional photos, these Air Force people were taking pictures.
 >In the photograph they were taking photographs of this vehicle.
 >One of the photos actually had the Air Force personnel with
 >this big long tape measure measuring this thing. You could see
 >that they had these parkas on, with little fur around their
 >hoods. You could see that they had the little name tags on
 >their jacket. They were clearly U.S. Air Force personnel.

This sounds like the Hollywood movie The Thing from 1951.

 >I was kind of in this strange state saying, "Here it is!" So I
 >turned the crank for more pictures, and I could see on the side
 >of this craft these like little insignias - little symbols. So
 >I turned ahead a couple of pictures to see if there was a
 >closer picture. Sure enough there was. One of the photos had
 >kind of a close-up picture of these symbols. So what I did is,
 >I was getting nervous. I looked around, and the guys weren't
 >watching or anything. They were outside of the room, so I took
 >the yellow pad, and I flipped it open to the little grey
 >cardboard backing and I flipped it under the screen. I shrank
 >the size of the picture to the exact same size as the back of
 >the yellow pad, and traced the actual symbols out in detail,
 >verbatim of what was there.

<snip>

How does one see through opaque cardboard in order to overlay it
on the screen and make an exact tracing?

 >DS:
 >... This extraordinary inclination
 >that seems to be present in this particular community [UFOlogists] of
 >attacking, and setting upon each other, over various minutia of
 >their various reports.

 >... there needs to be this kind of coalition forces in
 >disciplined attention, verifying in detail, through a
 >professional investigation the data that we need to move
 >forward.

This is a direct contradiction. You can't have it both ways,
Danny! A "disciplined" investigation of the "detail" requires
going over the "various minutia" of "various reports." That is
how critical thinking works, as against gullible thinking or
non-thinking.

 >SDI: Ya, that would be good if that would happen. The two
 >reports that you say Marcia Smith had produced and done for
 >Jimmy Carter. You said you say on, or you said you had seen
 >both?

 >DS: I saw both of them.

In other reports he said he received the reports. So where are they?

 >SDI: Were they yet classified?

 >DS: I don't know. People have asked me that. There wasn't any
 >classified designation on them when I saw them, or when Marcia
 >showed them to me.

 >SDI: What would you say the odds were for an eager beaver
 >researcher to be able to get their hands on either one of those
 >reports via the Freedom of Information Act there in the states?

 >DS: I don't know. It would depend upon whether or not they were
 >classified. If they were classified, that's one of the 22
 >grounds on the basis of which the freedom of Information Act
 >will not give you material.

Oh come on now. Sheehan is supposed to be a top attorney. Surely
he knows Congress is exempt from the FOIA so FOIA requests and
lawsuits can't be brought for the release of Congressional
reports and records.

 >SDI: But I can't see them not being classified, in view of the
 >content, and what you said you saw.

 >DS: Well, it's not clear. Again, I just don't know.

<snip>

He asked for "classified sections of Project Blue Book" which
was not a file or a book but a group of people carrying out a
task and he claims Marcia Smith succeeded in arranging for it.
But he saw nothing that had classification markings on it.

My suspicion would be that he saw the unsanitized Blue Book
microfilm which has all the classification markings deleted or
blanked out, but includes all the witness names that have been
blacked out from the public release.

 >SDI: Danny, explain this for me if you would. Amuse me I guess.
 >I am a layman, not a lawyer. Lawyers thing differently, and are
 >used to long periods of waiting. If I had come across something
 >like that in a basement in Washington, and done my little
 >sketch, I'd be talking to everyone and anybody about what I had
 >seen. Now explain it away to me, that I'm just a lawyer, I
 >think differently, and things take a long time. Why would you
 >have just not gone public with that?

 >DS: Well that is interesting. That's a perfectly logical
 >question. At the time when I was in Washington D.C. the things
 >that I realized being the general counsel for the Jesuit
 >Headquarters is that you actually bring information to the
 >proper authority and try to make the legal system work the way
 >it is supposed to work. It took quite some time for me to
 >realize that really it was necessary to go out to the people,
 >and have the people mobilize, rise up against the major
 >institution, and try to force them to do what they were doing.
 >I had come into Washington in 1975, and I was still operating
 >in 1976 and 1977 very much under the idea that we can get these
 >legal institutions to work. Since we had the new President, and
 >I understood that the President knew about this stuff, that he
 >had actually seen one, and that he was going to get copies of
 >this report, that I was anticipating that it was going to start
 >to work. When I was working on the Karen Silkwood case, I was
 >out in Oklahoma most of the time doing depositions regularly,
 >running professional investigators in the field, into a major
 >confrontation with the Central Intelligence Agency over the
 >potential smuggling of plutonium out of these facilities, I got
 >kind of swept up in all of that stuff, and I was really very
 >much buried in much of that stuff for the next couple of years.
 >I was surprised frankly, that nothing came out of the White
 >House, and the Executive Branch. Basically the time sort of
 >passed for that sort of key piece of information to come out. I
 >was waiting for some stuff to happen. I talked to people about
 >it, informally when I would see them. That's one of the reasons
 >when people contacted me to talk to John Mack about
 >representing him, I immediately agreed to do that.

<snip>

This explains what he was doing in the late 70's but not about
why he didn't make all this known in the 80's or 90's.

 >SDI: We'll just keep you for another 10 or 15 minutes. Good
 >stuff. Dan how did you get hooked-up with the Disclosure
 >Project?

 >DS: Well, I just got called by Steven Greer, and he asked if I
 >would participate in it and I have been trying over the last
 >year or so to make myself available to each of the major groups
 >that have been involved in the UFO issue, such as the
 >International UFO Congress, MUFON, Steven Greer's group, Dr.
 >John Mack, and others on a kind of an equal basis, so that I
 >can demonstrate I am open to talking to people from all points
 >of view, and actually establish a level of confidence in our
 >relationships together. We can try and draw the people
 >together, and share information, and work together in a common
 >investigation.
<big snip>

Everyone was given an "equal" access to Sheehan except those
with critical thinking skills _and_ expertise in the area of
government documentation and investigations of UFOs.

 >DS: Well, I hope that what we will do is come to an insight
 >that we pool our resources together and actually sponsor. I
 >pointed out before when I was on the Art Bell show, a tribunal
 >which we can actually bring forth and marshal our evidence. Put
 >it forward in a way that is admissible, with present rules of
 >federal civil procedure, that we act responsibly in this way,
 >that we try to do this in a way that will encourage people who
 >have opposing points of view to those that are held by the UFO
 >community in general to come forward to try and represent the
 >other side in a responsible and respectful way, and that we can
 >subject the various witnesses to cross-examination and to
 >testing of their evidence. We can then bring on federal judges
 >who will sit in judgement of this. We can empanel a real jury,
 >who can participate in listening to this information, that it
 >can be broadcast over radio and television, or web cast over
 >the Internet so that people can witness this type of major
 >event, so that we can bring the information forward in the most
 >responsible and careful way that we can, and then watch the
 >jury deliberate. We can actually have cameras, live cameras in
 >the room to see regular citizens deliberating on the
 >respectability of the respective witnesses, the different
 >pieces of evidence, and see what kind of conclusion that we can
 >come to here.

<snip>

What a waste of time and resources! Do the quote _real_ lawsuit
in a _real_ federal court with _real_ federal judge under the
FOIA to try to extract some _real_ new data instead of rehashing
old data. Maybe even force some Disclosure instead of jawboning
about it. Peter Gersten has been the only one to ever undertake
FOIA suits to force some disclosure, out of the CIA, NSA and
DoD, and he never had the full resources and support that was
needed (snipes about his personal style and beliefs are
impertinent 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 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:34:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:05:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hall


 >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:27:50 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:17:47 -0000

 >>List,

 >>I just came across an interview with Daniel Sheehan that I had
 >>missed before, by Vicki Ecker in UFO Magazine, Oct/Nov 2000. It
 >>states that Sheehan's entrance into the UFO field "[involves]
 >>the creation of a corporation to disperse funds on behalf of UFO
 >>disclosure... the named principals, who, besides Sheehan,
 >>include attorney Peter Gersten, Alfred Webre... lobbyist Steve
 >>Bassett and Michael Brownlee." The latter is the only name I
 >>don't recognize.

 >>The now familiar CRS story is recounted, but with a few
 >>intersting twists. He describes what sounds very much like the
 >>standard Project Blue Book microfilm files, and in them he found
 >>the snowy, "crashed saucer" scene.

 >>Does anyone know who Brownlee is? Has an actual corporation been
 >>formed? (If so, its papers should be available to the public.)
 >>Has anyone asked the Jesuit National Headquarters in Washington,
 >>D.C, their side of the story in regard to requested access to
 >>alleged Vatican UFO files?

 >Hi Dick, hi All,

 >You inquired:

 >>Finally, does that snowy "crashed saucer" scene with soldiers in
 >>parkas standing around it sound familiar to anyone?

 >Yes it does. But oddly enough it isn't an "American" story! There
 >was a program called, "The KGB Files" (I think it was narrated by
 >actor Roger Moore, aka, 'The Saint') that documented a host of
 >Russian UFO cases.

 >One of the cases featured on the program was a saucer crash.
 >They showed film footage of a small (maybe ten feet across) disc
 >that had crashed near a tree-line and was upturned and partially
 >covered in snow. There are many Russian soldiers in attendance
 >and they are all wearing 'winter gear'. Hooded overcoats with
 >the hoods lined in fur just as Dan Sheehan describes.

 >The case (and the footage) were from the 60's so it's possible
 >that Sheehan may have been looking at single frame captures from
 >that Russian footage. Although I don't know how anybody could
 >mistake those Russian military uniforms (some of the officers
 >were wearing those "Big top" military hats that they use over
 >there) for American military garb.

 >It's the only case I can think of that fits the description
 >provided by Sheehan. Unless somebody is aware or an identical
 >case involving American military personnel, this Russian footage
 >is the only thing that even comes close to what Dan Sheehan
 >recalls seeing.

John,

Bingo! When someone in Sheehan's mindset (thinking he is looking
at highly classified information despite all the clues to the
contrary) sees photos of a crashed saucer, he interprets it as
the real thing. Those of us who have actually plowed through the
Blue Book files know that it contains all sorts of newspaper
clippings, photo hoaxes, etc., as "background information." I
strongly suspect he has wrongly assumed things here.

I am on his side politically and philosophically in many
instances (not being sure of all he has been involved with, I
qualify my statement). But he needs to do more homework re:
UFOs.

Also, someone kindly informed me offline (with a link to prove
the point) that Michael Brownlee - one of the reported
"incorporators" of an agency for UFO disclosure along with
Sheehan and Greer - is a "Space Brothers" advocate non pareil.
What strange bedfellows we have here? Revenge of the Contactees,
in spades. They are coming back in force armed with high-profile
advocates.

My advice to Daniel Sheehan is, do your homework. Your admirable
skills could make a big difference if aligned with rational,
scientifically oriented ufologists rather than the ilk of Steven
Greer, Alfred Webre, and Michael Brownlee.


Dick

P.S. to John: I am currently re-reading The Saint stories from
the 1940s-1950s. Leslie Charteris was an amazingly literate and
articulate person who experienced racial prejudice (he was of
Japanese ancestry) during World War II.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                       Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:00:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:00:14 -0400
Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey




 From UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

Source: The Star-Ledger, New Jersey

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/jersey/ledger/13d386c.html



Late-night Carteret light
show a mystery

07/16/01

BY DORE CARROLL
STAR-LEDGER STAFF

A drowsy mother in Carteret saw the flickering golden lights in
the sky and ran for her camera. A hard-boiled Navy veteran
traveling the New Jersey Turnpike spotted the slow-moving,
bright-yellow V-formation and pulled his car to the shoulder to
get a better look.

Police officers on patrol at 12:40 a.m. yesterday couldn't
believe their eyes.

Within the hour, Carteret police dispatchers said they heard
from at least 15 callers reporting strange orange flares blazing
high above the Arthur Kill. The eerie glow had people at
backyard barbecues mesmerized, with heads upturned and mouths
agape. Almost 75 vehicles pulled over on the New Jersey Turnpike
to watch the spectacle.

But no one seems to know what caused the luminous vision.

Police could not identify the source of the lights, and Newark
International Airport authorities reported no unusual flight
patterns. A meteorologist with the National Weather Service said
nothing in the atmosphere would have caused the bright
disturbance, and an airman at McGuire Air Force Base said none
of their military planes were in the air at that hour.

Whatever it was that lit up the sky above Carteret was by all
accounts weird.

"It wasn't fireworks, and it couldn't have been a hot-air
balloon, not at night near the airfield," said Steven Vannoy,
who pulled over on the turnpike with his girlfriend on their way
home to Perth Amboy. "What we saw last night qualifies as a UFO.
It was an unidentifiable flying object."

A Carteret police sergeant on duty called the State Police and
neighboring departments in Linden and Woodbridge to find out
what was causing the strange glow, but he said none had received
reports of the lights.

Bob Wanton, a National Weather Service meteorologist in Mount
Holly, had no explanation for the lights. "Weatherwise, there
was nothing that would have caused it," he said.

The aurora borealis, a spectacular show of light high in the
northern hemisphere, is seldom visible in New Jersey, said
Wanton. The lights normally appear in the winter, he said.

"It's very unusual for the northern lights to come down this
far, especially at this time of year," he said.

On Staten Island, a spokeswoman for the 123rd precinct in the
Tottenville section suggested the display might have come from a
nightclub on Arthur Kill Road that frequently uses search lights
for promotions. The club had been ordered closed by a judge on
July 11 and its phone was disconnected yesterday.

Airman First Class Andre Steverson said no planes from McGuire
Air Force Base were flying at that time.

An operations manager at Newark International Airport said there
were no reports of unusual activity and said the lights "could
have been almost anything," from a group of military helicopters
on flight exercises to a blimp.

Maybe, said David Stich, who saw the bursts of light from his
back yard in Carteret. But those flares didn't look to him like
spotlights or anything else he could recognize.

"I never in my life saw anything like it," said Stich, a
lifelong Carteret resident accustomed to the roar and flight
path of aircraft from Newark. He compared the lights to
volleyballs, dwarfing the surrounding stars, and said they
clearly moved in formation.

Around the corner, Pam Russell's husband woke her to see the
show. She saw a diamond-shaped pattern in the sky and noticed
smaller lights leading the pack and bringing up the rear.

"I ran for my camera," said Russell. "But they disappeared."
Afterward, she said, the skies were dark and
silent.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:48:29 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:26:27 -0400
Subject: Re:  Barney Barnett - Friedman


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:55:44 -0500

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:37:30 -0300

 ><snip>


Awfully big snip. Dennis. Does that mean you accept that there
are crash stories I don't accept? and that I have not used Ruth
B's diary to prove there as a crash in the Plains??

 >Stan,

 >I've honestly forgotten:

 >How many crash sites were there, then?

Presuming we are restricting ourselves to SE NM in July 1947, it
appears that there was a debris field on the Foster ranch with
lots of relatively small pieces of peculiar stuff and no
conventional stuff and no bodies. A couple miles East of there
there were apparently the equivalent of crew compartment(s) with
3 or 4 small bodies with 4 fingers grayish brown skin, big
heads, longer upper arms than lower ones.

Over in the Plains there was apparently one almost intact saucer
perhaps 30' in diameter with a gash in one side and 4 small
bodies each with 4 relatively long fingers, large head, big
eyes. At least one was still alive. Very little debris. Bodies
similar in both cases. I think thumbs down on the Corn ranch
site especially since Frank Kaufmann admitted to me and other
witnesses that his account was not true. Ragsdale at best in my
gray basket over on the Pine Lodge Road.

 >Where were they located?

 >Which ones had bodies?

See above

 >Did they all have the same type of debris?


See above

 >Did they all have the same type of bodies?

See above. Yes.

 >TIA,

Don't know what this means.

 >Dennis


Stan



I will be gone from July 18 -29th for MUFON and a side trip to
Roswell for a documentary. STF








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:36:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:08:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Gates


 >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:19:33 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

<brevity snip>

John wrote:

 >I'm sorry man. I don't speak for anybody but me, but I'm here to
 >tell you that I won't do it. I am a strong supporter of the push
 >for disclosure, but I do not support Dr.Greer. (For all of the
 >above reasons.) I can't believe that you guys are willing to
 >"look the other way" in the name of expedience.

Kind of reminds me of politics. For example when Clinton was
cutting defense, cutting back bombers, bases and missiles the
"conservatives" howled and yelled about how he was destroying
our military, our defense blah blah blah.

Now President Bush, through SecDef has proposed cutting back the
b-1 bomber force by a third, retiring and removing all of our
latest ICBM's, the peacekeepers, proposed closing 25 military
bases...which the joint chiefs supported because they want to
use the savings to upgrade and buy "much needed weapons systems"
plus according to SecDef he is attempting to find "25-30 billion
dollars in additional savings in the defense budget." Not to
mention cutting the nuclear warheads down by 600 percent.

These same conservatives who howled and yelled when Clinton
proposed cuts now are silent. Its called "our guy is in
power..."

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 >
   Jul > Jul 17

               Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:05:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:14:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Velez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:34:39 -0000

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:27:50 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:17:47 -0000

 >>>List,

 >>>I just came across an interview with Daniel Sheehan that I had
 >>>missed before, by Vicki Ecker in UFO Magazine, Oct/Nov 2000. It
 >>>states that Sheehan's entrance into the UFO field "[involves]
 >>>the creation of a corporation to disperse funds on behalf of UFO
 >>>disclosure... the named principals, who, besides Sheehan,
 >>>include attorney Peter Gersten, Alfred Webre... lobbyist Steve
 >>>Bassett and Michael Brownlee." The latter is the only name I
 >>>don't recognize.

 >>>The now familiar CRS story is recounted, but with a few
 >>>intersting twists. He describes what sounds very much like the
 >>>standard Project Blue Book microfilm files, and in them he found
 >>>the snowy, "crashed saucer" scene.

 >>>Does anyone know who Brownlee is? Has an actual corporation been
 >>>formed? (If so, its papers should be available to the public.)
 >>>Has anyone asked the Jesuit National Headquarters in Washington,
 >>>D.C, their side of the story in regard to requested access to
 >>>alleged Vatican UFO files?

 >>Hi Dick, hi All,

 >>You inquired:

 >>>Finally, does that snowy "crashed saucer" scene with soldiers in
 >>>parkas standing around it sound familiar to anyone?

 >>Yes it does. But oddly enough it isn't an "American" story! There
 >>was a program called, "The KGB Files" (I think it was narrated by
 >>actor Roger Moore, aka, 'The Saint') that documented a host of
 >>Russian UFO cases.

 >>One of the cases featured on the program was a saucer crash.
 >>They showed film footage of a small (maybe ten feet across) disc
 >>that had crashed near a tree-line and was upturned and partially
 >>covered in snow. There are many Russian soldiers in attendance
 >>and they are all wearing 'winter gear'. Hooded overcoats with
 >>the hoods lined in fur just as Dan Sheehan describes.

 >>The case (and the footage) were from the 60's so it's possible
 >>that Sheehan may have been looking at single frame captures from
 >>that Russian footage. Although I don't know how anybody could
 >>mistake those Russian military uniforms (some of the officers
 >>were wearing those "Big top" military hats that they use over
 >>there) for American military garb.

 >>It's the only case I can think of that fits the description
 >>provided by Sheehan. Unless somebody is aware or an identical
 >>case involving American military personnel, this Russian footage
 >>is the only thing that even comes close to what Dan Sheehan
 >>recalls seeing.

 >John,

 >Bingo! When someone in Sheehan's mindset (thinking he is looking
 >at highly classified information despite all the clues to the
 >contrary) sees photos of a crashed saucer, he interprets it as
 >the real thing. Those of us who have actually plowed through the
 >Blue Book files know that it contains all sorts of newspaper
 >clippings, photo hoaxes, etc., as "background information." I
 >strongly suspect he has wrongly assumed things here.

 >I am on his side politically and philosophically in many
 >instances (not being sure of all he has been involved with, I
 >qualify my statement). But he needs to do more homework re:
 >UFOs.

 >Also, someone kindly informed me offline (with a link to prove
 >the point) that Michael Brownlee - one of the reported
 >"incorporators" of an agency for UFO disclosure along with
 >Sheehan and Greer - is a "Space Brothers" advocate non pareil.
 >What strange bedfellows we have here? Revenge of the Contactees,
 >in spades. They are coming back in force armed with high-profile
 >advocates.

Hi Dick, hi all,

You wrote:

 >My advice to Daniel Sheehan is, do your homework. Your admirable
 >skills could make a big difference if aligned with rational,
 >scientifically oriented ufologists rather than the ilk of Steven
 >Greer, Alfred Webre, and Michael Brownlee.

It's always a tough call to tell somebody who their friends or
associates should be, but SOB if you ain't right in this case.
This guy could be _great_ for ufology. Let's hope that all this
is just a manifestation of "growing pains". That as he learns
more about ufology, and 'who's who', he'll begin to choose his
affiliations more carefully and with some wisdom.

You're an 'old timer' now Dick. I don't have to remind you that
the only way most of us learn anything (that's worth a damn) is
by making mistakes born of innocent ignorance. Once we learn
though, there's no excuse for making bad choices. For now I'm
giving Dan Sheehan the full benefit of the doubt. I'll let you
know when the honeymoon is over.  :)

 >P.S. to John: I am currently re-reading The Saint stories from
 >the 1940s-1950s. Leslie Charteris was an amazingly literate and
 >articulate person who experienced racial prejudice (he was of
 >Japanese ancestry) during World War II.

I read a couple of those years ago right after I had devoured
all of Ian Fleming's offerings. I had no idea Leslie Charteris
was Japanese. As a member of a (one time) minority group who has
experienced my share of bigotry and prejudice, I can identify
with him.

Not so funny anecdote:

Premise: I "look like" a "white guy." I am not a dark skinned
Puerto Rican like some of the members of my own family.

I got into a cab one time (in Manhattan) on my way to an
appointment when the cabbie suddenly volunteered: "Ya see this
neighborhood? Geez, it used to be such a beautiful place to live
in before all the spics moved in! They oughtta burn em all out
into the streets, then line em up, and shoot 'em all in the head.
Send all those rat bastards back to Puerto Rico in body bags!"

I never said a word. My dad taught me never to argue with
idiots. Mind you now, the first thing I did after his remark was
to look over at his license. The surname on the guys license was
"Giatrakis!"  (You don't forget a name like that!) I cracked up
laughing out loud. The guy looked up at me in the rear view
mirror and didn't say a word the rest of the ride.

Needless to say,... no tip!  ;)

Never judge a book by it's cover, eh?  <LOL>


Warm regards,

John Velez

S.O.S - on the Side Of Sanity.  ;)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 17

               CCCRN News: Fields of Dreams Webcast Radio Show

From: Paul Anderson <psa@look.ca>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:00:26 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:33:21 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: Fields of Dreams Webcast Radio Show


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

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

July 17, 2001

_____________________________


Fields Of Dreams Webcast Radio Show - Night Search Paranormal
Network


CCCRN is pleased to announce the start of its own monthly
webcast radio show, Fields of Dreams, beginning August 1, 2001
for the Night Search Paranormal Network:

http://www.nightsearch.net

The program, hosted by CCCRN founder and director Paul Anderson,
will broadcast live the first Wednesday of each month, at 6:00
pm to 7:00 pm PT/9:00 pm to 10:00 pm ET, covering the crop
circle phenomenon in Canada and abroad with the latest updates,
guest researchers and listener call-ins.

Listenership is by subscription at low, affordable rates. The
advantage of this is that all programs on NSPN feature NO
COMMERCIALS unlike other broadcasts. A single subscription
provides listening access to all programs on NSPN, for the
duration of the subscription, featuring researchers from around
the world hosting their own programs on a wide range of topics
in a unique webcasting format.

To subscribe:

http://nightsearchregistration.net

Rates:

One month $7.50, three months $21.00, six  months $35.00 or yearly $77.00
(all prices US $).

**Please reference this show when you register, thank you!

Also listen for other periodic and breaking updates from CCCRN,
including live reports 'from the field' later this summer and
fall on the Paranormal World Report (also included with
subscription):

http://www.nightsearch.net/nspn_world_report.html

Other researchers contributing to NSPN include Eddie Middleton,
Colleen Johnston, Joyce Murphy, Lou Farish, William Thomas,
Chris Fleming, Bob Eure, Patrick Cross, Bufo Calvin, James
Bartley, Richard Chelham, Brenda Lowe, kt Frankovich, Jason
Groves, Ashley Bryant, Malcolm Hathorne, Andrew Hennessey, Eve
Lorgen, Steve Nance, Vella New, Willow Rand, Richard Graham,
Chris Ward and Randy Winters. Complete program details here:

http://www.nightsearch.net/nspn_broadcasters.html


____________________________


CCCRN News is the e-news service of the Canadian Crop Circle
  Research Network, providing e-mail updates with the latest news
and reports on the crop circle phenomenon in Canada, as well as
other information on CCCRN-related projects and events. CCCRN
  News is available free by subscription:

To subscribe to CCCRN News, send a blank e-mail to:
cccrnnews-subscribe@topica.com

To unsubscribe from CCCRN News, send a blank e-mail to:
cccrnnews-unsubscribe@topica.com

CCCRN News Archive:
http://www.topica.com/lists/cccrnnews/read


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

Main Office:
202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5T 2M9 Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@look.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





==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84wZ8.a9oHUT
Or send an email To: cccrnnews-unsubscribe@topica.com
This email was sent to: ufoupdates@home.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                  Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:03:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:44:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Velez


 >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:01:15 -0700
 >Subject: Discovery Channel Documentary
 >From: Jason Ciaccia <jciaccia@atlasmediacorp.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

Hello All,

Regarding the Discovery Channel's proposed 'documentary'.

This is how the message posted to our List is worded for public
consumption:

 >I am an Associate Producer on a documentary about Sleep
 >Paralysis for the Discovery Channel.

 >We are producing a quality documentary for The Discovery Channel
 >that will explore various nocturnal and other "paranormal"
 >attacks, including alien abduction.

Here is how the "private" invitation I received to participate
in the program was worded:

 >We are producing a quality documentary for The Discovery Channel that will
 >explore various nocturnal and other "paranormal" attacks, including alien
 >abduction.

Notice anything missing from the version that was sent to me?

No mention _at_all_ about "sleep paralysis" in the version going
out to abductees. Hmmm... I wonder why!  ;)

"Garbage in... garbage out" I always say. How good is the final
product going to be? How good _can it be_ when right off the mark
they seek to deceive by convenient (for them) omission?

Shades of NOVA!

I hope they don't take the testimony they get from abductees and
edit it in such a way as to make it all force fit their stated
"sleep paralysis" agenda.

If that _isn't_ what they're planning... then why the hell don't
they let the abductees know _up_front_ that the focus of the
program will be "sleep paralysis?" In the version being mailed
to prospective participants there is _no_mention_ of the term
sleep paralysis at all. Anywhere. Yet, it is the _clearly_ stated
focus of this alleged "documentary". (According to the public
version of it.)

I'm sick and tired of this kind of crap journalism. I strongly
suggest to any and all abductees within earshot to think twice
about participating in this program. I've seen this 'syndrome'
before many times folks. They tell you it's only raining as
they piss on your leg.

If they are lying up front, (by omission) why expect an honest
result on the back side. More _junk_ programming says I. They
ought to take the thousands they're spending on it and use it to
feed the homeless. Put it to some good use.

Boycott this thing!


Regards,

John Velez
Still waiting for an "investigation" into our claims.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                    Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:03:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:49:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee


 >From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee
 >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:01:50 -0700

 >Hi all,

 >I have had a person contact us through our CUFON web site saying
 >that she has been experiencing very disturbing incidents she
 >describes as "attacks," that she believes are connected with
 >alien entities, and has asked us to help.

 >I did ask whether she had sought help thorough normal medical
 >channels, but she indicates that she had already "... tried
 >several healers and tried contacting alien abduction
 >organizations all so far have failed. I recently worked with a
 >pastor..." all to no apparent avail. She is asking for help
 >ending the attacks. This woman's pain sounds quite real.

 >Any suggestions as to what I might suggest to this person; who
 >might I refer her to in the Pasadena CA area?

 >Contact me off list if you'd rather.

 >Jim Klotz

 >jklotz77@foxinternet.net


Hi Jim, hi All,

Jimmy your heart is in the right place. You're a sensitive and
caring person. Out of concern for the unfortunate lady in the
post and for you, I offer the following:

Be very careful what you do. In a situation like this
professional help is indicated. The _only_ recommendation you
should proffer is that she contact a mental health care
professional of her own choosing.

If you send her to an "abductionologist" and she turns out to be
suffering from some kind of psychiatric disorder (unrelated to
an actual UFO abduction) it will only serve to worsen her
condition by reinforcing the belief system that _already_ has
her in a bad state. In either case (whether she's being abducted
or not) the state she's in dictates that she seek professional
help immediately.


Check this out Jim:

She could turn around ten years from now and blame _you_ for
reinforcing her painful condition by sending her to someone who
wasn't critical or objective enough in their treatment of her.
Not to mention that she could also choose to sue the hell out
of you.

For her sake, and for ethical and legal considerations you
should be _very_ careful about any recommendations you may make.
By all means help her, but please be very careful and thoughtful
about it.

I get these kinds of e-mails once in awhile. I have the
advantage of ten years of crisis intervention counselling
experience to the table. I ask you to please give a little
'weight' to the suggestions I am making to you here. I wouldn't
want to see you, or her, get hurt in any fashion. You're a good
guy for wanting to help. As an "experiencer" I want you to know
that I really appreciate that kind of thoughtful consideration
from you, or anyone.

Just my two cents.


Regards,

John Velez








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 17

               Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:18:36 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:51:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hatch


 >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:04:41 -0400
 >From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:17:47 -0000

 ><snip>

 >>Finally, does that snowy "crashed saucer" scene with soldiers in
 >>parkas standing around it sound familiar to anyone?

 >LOL! Yep, "The Secrety UFO Files of the KGB", a TNT special.
 >Read all about it (with pictures):

 >http://www.sightings.com/ufo/russ1969crash.htm

 >Regards,

 >Terry


Hello Terry and all:


The first image that popped into my mind was a movie (or its
re-make) about some saucer entombed in the Antarctic ice.

Instead of soldiers, it was ringed with geophysical researchers
(or whatever) down there for other purposes. A very dramatic
shot, they outlined a perfect circle.

The best part is some life-form which takes over any living
organism it touches... the dogs... you name it.

At one point this hand goes walking across the floor
all by itself. Great movie. Sci-fi buffs will all
remember the name, I can't. 'The Thing'?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:28:34 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:55:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:48:29 -0300

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:55:44 -0500

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:37:30 -0300

Good Morning all -

Thought I would jump in here before Stan rushes off to
spread the word again and then gets twenty million emails
that he'll have to wade through. Yes, Stan, I know you don't
really receive twenty million emails. That was hyperbole.

 >><snip>


 >Awfully big snip. Dennis. Does that mean you accept that there
 >are crash stories I don't accept? and that I have not used Ruth
 >B's diary to prove there as a crash in the Plains??

 >>Stan,

 >>I've honestly forgotten:

 >>How many crash sites were there, then?

 >Presuming we are restricting ourselves to SE NM in July 1947, it
 >appears that there was a debris field on the Foster ranch with
 >lots of relatively small pieces of peculiar stuff and no
 >conventional stuff and no bodies. A couple miles East of there
 >there were apparently the equivalent of crew compartment(s) with
 >3 or 4 small bodies with 4 fingers grayish brown skin, big
 >heads, longer upper arms than lower ones.

This to keep the MJ-12 papers alive. No good evidence for the
escape capsule or crew compartment, but a necessity if the MJ-12
papers are to be believed. And, the incorporation of the Glenn
Dennis story here, even with parts of that story having eroded
completely.

 >Over in the Plains there was apparently one almost intact saucer
 >perhaps 30' in diameter with a gash in one side and 4 small
 >bodies each with 4 relatively long fingers, large head, big
 >eyes. At least one was still alive. Very little debris. Bodies
 >similar in both cases.

This to keep the Gerald Anderson tale alive, though the Barnett
end of it mentions nothing about one being alive. This also
overlooks the fact that Anderson said, at first, one was injured
but alive and later said one was injured but dying and another
was unhurt. And, it overlooks the fact that Anderson, contrary
to what Stan wants to believe, was caught in many lies and
forged a number of documents including his telephone bill, his
high school transcript, the letter from ValleyJean, and his
uncle's diary.

 >I think thumbs down on the Corn ranch
 >site especially since Frank Kaufmann admitted to me and other
 >witnesses that his account was not true.

Yes, now that the man is dead we can start these sorts of
rumors. You have, of course, a tape recording of Kaufmann
admitting to you that his account was not true. You have a
letter, signed by him, admitting to you that his account was not
true. Isn't it interesting that now he is dead, we begin to hear
that he admitted, to you that his account was not true. Who else
did he tell, Max Littell? Don Schmitt? Will there ever be any
evidence of this, or will it be another example of the creation
of testimony, not unlike the insertion of the word "black" into
the report by Bill Brazel in an attempt to add a level of
corroboration to the Anderson story?

 >Ragsdale at best in my
 >gray basket over on the Pine Lodge Road.

For heaven's sake why? Or, better yet, which version of his
story is in your gray basket? The one where he stands off, never
gets close to the bodies, and runs as soon as the military shows
up, or the version where he sees everything and is pulling gold
helmets off the fifteen dead aliens? The one where he is up on
the Corn ranch or the one where he is at Boy Scout Mountain? The
one in which he doesn't see much of the ship or the one in which
it looks as if it collided with another ship and on the inside
is a jewel encrusted throne? The version where he has debris and
takes it home only to have it stolen, along with his
Stradivarius, or the one in which he buries the golden helmets
of the alien creatures? Just which version is in the gray
basket?

Sorry to butt in here, Dennis, but I really would like to know
the answers to these questions... and why he was so sure, when
the Ragsdale report first surfaced, that it was untrue and why
it is now in his gray basket.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:44:09 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:57:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:25:15 -0300

 >>From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:17:47 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>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

 >>Stan wrote:

 >>>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 [Anderson] passed a
 >>>polygraph examination.

Tom Carey wrote:

 >>To Stan and List:

 >>I cannot believe that you are running Gerald Anderson up the
 >>flagpole again. Some of us, fortunately, still remember. If you
 >>recall, we exposed him as a hoaxer almost a decade ago. As a
 >>result, you and Don Berliner were forced to issue a mea culpa
 >>concerning the veracity of Anderson. It saddens me to see you
 >>trying on this old shoe again. Must we go through the entire
 >>litany of Anderson's fabrications once again?

To which Stan replied:

 >Maybe we should, and replace myths with facts.

Stan, Tom, List, all -

Yes, let's replace myths with facts. This could be fun.

 >Yes he changed a
 >phone bill and has admitted it. He was indeed justifiably angry
 >at the demonizing of him that was being done.That doesn't
 >justify the changing. As I recall you did an article demonizing
 >him in IUR noting he was a poor high school student but not
 >noting his GED and many subsequent college courses.

Interesting, maybe, but wholly irrelevant in this discussion.
Yes, his anger would have been justified, had we not already
caught him a bunch of other lies and suggested that, as a
witness, he wasn't worth much. Of course, much of this was
private communication, not directed toward Anderson so he
wouldn't have known about the doubts had not someone been
telling him these things. Telling him that I was a former
intelligence officer, and telling him not to talk to me. Telling
him that I wrote romances... which is, of course, a false claim
(Stan's term).

 >You and
 >others claimed he was in Buskirk's class. No support for that
 >from Larry Henning, with whom I spoke yet again yesterday . Nor
 >from other students with whom I spoke who were in the class and
 >didn't recognize Gerald from his yearbook picture.

Henning and the Yearbook photograph nonsense are Red Herrings.
Dr. Buskirk said that Anderson was in the class, verifying that
when he called the Albuquerque High School and asked his friends
there to review that record. When I called, I was told by one of
the assistant principals that Anderson had taken the
anthropology course taught by Buskirk. We know this because
there was but a single class in anthropology and Buskirk taught
it. So, Henning, who when I asked about a student named
Anderson, said, "Jerry Anderson?" is irrelevant.

Besides, Anderson was at the Albuquerque High School where
Buskirk taught. Yes, it was spread through three buildings, but
isn't that a huge coincidence... that Anderson and Buskirk would
see a crashed flying saucer in 1947 and ten years later be at
the same high school. Isn't it odd that Stan insists on talking
about the students in the class rather than the teacher of it
and the administrators of the school who have access to the
records?

 >People have claimed he wasn't in the Seals, apparently because
 >some guy told Kevin he didn't recall him.. Real evidence that.
 >It is claimed he faked the uncle's diary. Basis?? I had tests
 >done. The ink predated Roswell noise.

Some guy? He was the head of the SEALs museum in Miami and a
former member of the Navy SEALs himself. According to him, in
the 1960s, there weren't many SEALs. They all knew one another.
They don't know Anderson. Do you have any proof that he was a
SEAL? Have you attempted to retrieve his record from the Records
Center? If not, why not? Oh, yes, research by proclamation and
the false claim (Stan's term) that Anderson was a SEAL.

And no, the ink didn't predate the Roswell noise. It was a
formula developed in 1974 and therefore proved that Anderson's
diary couldn't have been written in 1947 as he had falsely
(Stan's term) claimed. It didn't prove that the diary couldn't
have been written, oh, after January 1990 when Anderson saw the
"Unsolved Mysteries" segment. Research by proclamation.

Let's not forget that Anderson changed the description of the
alien creatures, changed the number of dead, dying and living,
changed moss agate to moss agate and banded agate when he
learned that moss agate wasn't found around the Plains, claimed
he could read at five and then that he couldn't, changed the
location of the crash site and the shape of the craft he saw,
and on and on. All these are good reasons to believe that
Anderson's story is not grounded in reality.

<snip>

 >I take it you have some evidence that her excursion was the only
 >one made by Victor? Come off it Tom. When I mention names they
 >get totally ignored or demonized. How about Johnny Foard?

Yes, Stan, how about Johnny Foard? I was the first to talk with
him and the one who found him. He told me that he remembered
talk of a crash on the Plains, but couldn't remember when he had
first heard it. He thought it could have been after the
publication of The Roswell Incident, which makes the story of
little real value, especially when he is unable to supply much
in the way of detail.

 >How
 >about Colonel Leed? How about Harold Baca? Vern and Jean
 >Maltais?

Yes, all very nice people, but all who are traced back to Barney
Barnett.

 >Robert Drake?

Yes, Robert Drake who allegedly heard the story from an
unidentified cowboy in 1947, but there is no verification of
this and his story. He surfaced after the publication of The
Roswell Incident.

 >How about JG? I presume they don't count
 >because they say what you don't want to hear. Tough luck.

They don't count here because they can't be used to corroborate
the Plains of San Agustin story because they basically can be
traced back to the same source. When it is all boiled down, you
have Barney Barnett.

 >>Tom Carey

 >I am glad to hear you were out in the Plains. I am sorry to hear
 >you present such a loaded picture of what Victor and others have
 >done. Of course there is a lot of noise to go with the signal.
 >Selective choice of data and demonization are hardly scientific
 >tools.

 >Stanton Friedman

Stan, you forgot research by proclamation there. What we have
with Anderson is a man who was caught lying about his interview
with me, lied about his telephone bill and forged a document to
prove it. Lied about his anthropology class... Let's get a
letter from the school, sent directly to you, telling us what
class Anderson took. That way you both can prove that I'm wrong,
that I mislead Tom and the others into believing Anderson took
the anthropology, and you can go a long way to rehabilitating
the Anderson story. Of course, I will not hold my breath.

And write to the Records Center and get Anderson's service
record. Let's see if he was a Navy SEAL. He doesn't seem to
understand the terminology and has presented no documents to
verify this, so let's see what the record has to say. Prove me
wrong on this point as well.

And, let's stop throwing in Larry Henning. He is irrelevant
because the real information came from Anderson's high school
teacher and the school itself. No one but you really cares about
Henning and what he thinks he remembers.

And finally, let's not forget the other lies that Anderson has
told over the years.

Sorry to butt in here, Tom, but Stan wanted to replace some of
the myths with facts and I thought that I could help.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:42:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:12:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:21:43 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:19:33 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:27:33 -0000

 >>I'm also willing to play "you show me yours and I'll show you
 >>mine" with his alien symbols. I'll send him a copy of the ones I
 >>saw for a copy of the ones he saw. It would be interesting to
 >>see if there are any 'matches' among them. I can't believe he's
 >>had those symbols since 1977 and hasn't shared them with anyone.

 >John, Dick:

 >He didn't realize the importance of the "data", John.

 >>Errol, act as an intermediary and propose my 'swap' idea to him.
 >>We could both send you copies of our "alien symbols" and you can
 >>send them out to each of us simultaneously. No chance for sneak
 >>peeks. :)  You can also report to the list if there are any
 >>correspondences between them. Wadda ya tink?
 >
 >A good idea.  I would like to see his hand sketch of the "data" of
 >the Century.


Hiya Young Bob, hi all,

Yeah, I was a bit surprised that he's been holding on to that
material since 1977. Whether it's significant or not. None of us
(including your esteemed self) is in any position to judge it
until we've had a chance to see it and check out Dan's story. I
wasn't too crazy about the reason he gave for 'why' he held it
back for so long. He claims he's been waiting for a 'big enough'
bandwagon to jump on before he would offer it up for public
consumption and scrutiny. Dr.Greer's travelling medicine show
has obviously (finally) met his criteria. I know lawyers don't
like to take on cases that they know they are going to lose, but
what the hell kind of a reason was that to hold on to "possibly"
important material for twenty-four years? Dan Sheehan is a lot
like one of those slightly used cars that is all shiny and
perfect on the outside, but makes weird noises when you drive
it.

I really want to give this guy support and the benefit of the
doubt. I think he's extremely valuable to ufology because of his
background and reputation, but in Latin countries we have a
saying that goes like this:

"Digame con quien andas y te digo quien eres."

"Tell me 'who' you walk with and I'll tell you who _you_ are."

I have always been rabidly proud of the people I have chosen to
affiliate myself with. The company you keep defines you to a
significant extent. I'm not too choked up about some of the
company Dan keeps. I'm kinda hoping it's just 'newbie
misjudgement' on his part. His choices so far though have made
my 'internal radar warning system' go off nonetheless.

Hey Bob, whatcha gonna say (if) there are any correlations among
the symbols we both submit? Will you eat a straw hat (no salt!)
for me? <LOL>All kidding aside, I really am curious to see if
there are any -clear- correspondences. It will add a whole other
dimension to this discussion. I hope Dan consents to
participate.

Stay tuned! Same Bat time,... same Bat channel!  :)

Regards,

John Velez








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                  Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Geib

From: Dan Geib <geibdan@qtm.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:36:53 GMT
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:14:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Geib


 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:03:41 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary

 >Notice anything missing from the version that was sent to me?

 >No mention _at_all_ about "sleep paralysis" in the version going
 >out to abductees. Hmmm... I wonder why!  ;)

 >"Garbage in... garbage out" I always say. How good is the final
 >product going to be? How good _can it be_ when right off the mark
 >they seek to deceive by convenient (for them) omission?


And of course, we certainly wouldnt want those with actual sleep
disorders to get any help would we? And we certainly wouldnt
want some poor soul that suffers from sleep disorders but is
convinced he/she has been abducted to have any other legitamate
explanation now would we?

Open Minds create open viewpoints. There are more than one view
to the world around us.

Dan
UFO
Folklore









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

               Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:38:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:17:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology Cecchini


 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:18:36 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:17:47 -0000

<snip>

 >>Finally, does that snowy "crashed saucer" scene with soldiers
 >>in parkas standing around it sound familiar to anyone?

 >The first image that popped into my mind was a movie (or its
 >re-make) about some saucer entombed in the Antarctic ice.

 >At one point this hand goes walking across the floor
 >all by itself. Great movie. Sci-fi buffs will all
 >remember the name, I can't. 'The Thing'?

Yes; more specifically, John Carpenter's 1982 incredible (yes,
JC's actually made some good ones...) remake of the 1951 movie.

BTW, does _anyone_ know what the end result was of the recent
"scientific activity" up in the Antarctic??











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee - Klotz

From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:42:30 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:22:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee - Klotz


 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:03:58 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee

 >>From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:01:50 -0700

 >>Hi all,

 >>I have had a person contact us through our CUFON web site saying
 >>that she has been experiencing very disturbing incidents she
 >>describes as "attacks," that she believes are connected with
 >>alien entities, and has asked us to help.

 >>I did ask whether she had sought help thorough normal medical
 >>channels, but she indicates that she had already "... tried
 >>several healers and tried contacting alien abduction
 >>organizations all so far have failed. I recently worked with a
 >>pastor..." all to no apparent avail. She is asking for help
 >>ending the attacks. This woman's pain sounds quite real.

 >>Any suggestions as to what I might suggest to this person; who
 >>might I refer her to in the Pasadena CA area?

 >>Contact me off list if you'd rather.


 >Jimmy your heart is in the right place. You're a sensitive and
 >caring person. Out of concern for the unfortunate lady in the
 >post and for you, I offer the following:

 >Be very careful what you do. In a situation like this
 >professional help is indicated. The _only_ recommendation you
 >should proffer is that she contact a mental health care
 >professional of her own choosing.

 >If you send her to an "abductionologist" and she turns out to be
 >suffering from some kind of psychiatric disorder (unrelated to
 >an actual UFO abduction) it will only serve to worsen her
 >condition by reinforcing the belief system that _already_ has
 >her in a bad state. In either case (whether she's being abducted
 >or not) the state she's in dictates that she seek professional
 >help immediately.

 >Check this out Jim:

 >She could turn around ten years from now and blame _you_ for
 >reinforcing her painful condition by sending her to someone who
 >wasn't critical or objective enough in their treatment of her.
 >Not to mention that she could also choose to sue the hell out
 >of you.

 >For her sake, and for ethical and legal considerations you
 >should be _very_ careful about any recommendations you may make.
 >By all means help her, but please be very careful and thoughtful
 >about it.

<snip>

Thank you John.

Professional help is the first thing I suggested to her.  And I
will do so again today.

Frankly, I am more concerned about this woman's welfare than any
liability of my own, but I am not ignoring this possible aspect
of things either.

Thanks for your kind thoughts and words.

- Jim Klotz









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                 Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:04:00 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:30:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee - Hall


 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:03:58 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee

 >>From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Request On Behalf Of An Abductee
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:01:50 -0700

 >>Hi all,

 >>I have had a person contact us through our CUFON web site saying
 >>that she has been experiencing very disturbing incidents she
 >>describes as "attacks," that she believes are connected with
 >>alien entities, and has asked us to help.

 >>I did ask whether she had sought help thorough normal medical
 >>channels, but she indicates that she had already "... tried
 >>several healers and tried contacting alien abduction
 >>organizations all so far have failed. I recently worked with a
 >>pastor..." all to no apparent avail. She is asking for help
 >>ending the attacks. This woman's pain sounds quite real.

 >>Any suggestions as to what I might suggest to this person; who
 >>might I refer her to in the Pasadena CA area?

<snip>


 >Jimmy your heart is in the right place. You're a sensitive and
 >caring person. Out of concern for the unfortunate lady in the
 >post and for you, I offer the following:

 >Be very careful what you do. In a situation like this
 >professional help is indicated. The _only_ recommendation you
 >should proffer is that she contact a mental health care
 >professional of her own choosing.

 >If you send her to an "abductionologist" and she turns out to be
 >suffering from some kind of psychiatric disorder (unrelated to
 >an actual UFO abduction) it will only serve to worsen her
 >condition by reinforcing the belief system that _already_ has
 >her in a bad state. In either case (whether she's being abducted
 >or not) the state she's in dictates that she seek professional
 >help immediately.

 >Check this out Jim:

 >She could turn around ten years from now and blame _you_ for
 >reinforcing her painful condition by sending her to someone who
 >wasn't critical or objective enough in their treatment of her.
 >Not to mention that she could also choose to sue the hell out
 >of you.

 >For her sake, and for ethical and legal considerations you
 >should be _very_ careful about any recommendations you may make.
 >By all means help her, but please be very careful and thoughtful
 >about it.

<snip>

Jim & John,

I endorse John's cautions here, but there may be a happy medium.
First of all, the worst thing that could possibly happen to this
person (may already have happened, reading between the lines) is
to get involved with the wrong "believer" type who can do
incalculable harm.

Several reputable groups (including Intruders Foundation and the
UFO Research Coalition) have referral lists. Try to find someone
who is, first and foremost, a health care professional and
secondly who is aware of abduction cases and may be working with
a UFO group or independently. (Uninformed health care
professionals also can do harm.)

I have one to recommend in the Los Angeles area, a female PhD
psychologist with biomedical research background.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:55:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:31:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:48:29 -0300

<snip>

 >>TIA,

 >Don't know what this means.

Stan,

TIA means "thanks in advance."

There is a whole host of such abbreviations used in e-mail.

BTW, for "by the way" is another one.

Cuts down on the number of key strokes...


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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

              NASA Celebrates 25Th Anniversary Of Mars Landing

From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:40:21 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:50:40 -0400
Subject: NASA Celebrates 25Th Anniversary Of Mars Landing

Donald Savage
Headquarters, Washington, DC

(Phone: 202/358-1753)


July 17, 2001

Mary Hardin
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
(Phone: 818/354-5011)

Ivilesse Gilman
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
(Phone: 757/864-6122)

Joan Underwood
Lockheed-Martin Astronautics Corp., Denver, CO
(Phone: 303/971-7398)

RELEASE: 01-143

NASA CELEBRATES 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF MARS LANDING

Twenty-five years ago, on July 20, 1976, NASA's Viking 1 lander
soft-landed on the surface of Mars, becoming the first
successful mission to land on the Red Planet, as well as the
first successful American landing on another planet.

With a second lander later joining the first on the surface and
with two orbiters circling the planet, the Viking project
changed our understanding of that alien world. Its treasure
trove of images and data covering the entire Martian globe
remains a valuable scientific resource for the study of Mars.

Thursday, July 19, NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin delivers
the keynote address at "Continuing the Quest -- Celebrating
Viking and Looking to the Future of Mars Exploration," a
symposium hosted by Lockheed-Martin Corp. at the National
Geographic Society's Grosvenor Auditorium, Washington, DC, from
1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT.

NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, hosts a panel
discussion, titled "Viking: The First Encounter," at Langley's
Reid Conference Center, Friday, July 20, from 1:30 p.m. to 3
p.m. EDT. This event will be broadcast live on NASA Television.

The Viking 1 lander operated on the Plain of Chryse (Chryse
Planitia) until November 1982. The Viking 2 lander set down on
the Plain of Utopia (Utopia Planitia) on Sept. 3, 1976, and
operated until April 1980. The two landers took 4,500
unprecedented images of the surrounding surface and more than
three million weather-related measurements, while the two
orbiters took 52,000 images representing 97 percent of the
Martian globe.

Viking will probably be most remembered for its search for life
on Mars. Each lander contained a suite of biology instruments
designed to detect evidence of life in the Martian soil.
Scientists concluded that the Viking experiments found no
evidence of life at either landing site, but didn't rule out the
possibility that life may have existed in the past or may still
exist in other, more hospitable, places.

"The Viking landing sites are extremely dry desert environments
where it would be unlikely to find present-day biological
activity on the surface," said Dr. Jim Garvin, Mars Program
Scientist at NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. "Other sites on
Mars, such as nearer the polar caps or other places where liquid
water may be found, are far more likely places to look for signs
of present or past life. Our long- term plans call for missions
to find liquid water on or under the surface, which will be the
best places to begin a search for signs of life."

NASA's Langley Research Center was responsible for managing
Project Viking. "We didn't really knows what Mars was all about.
Mars had been examined from orbit by the Mariners and we had a
pretty good picture, but the images were on the scale of a
football field," said Viking Project Manager James Martin. "That
was the smallest thing we could see and that's not very distinct
when you consider the landers are only in the order of six or
eight feet across. We didn't have the slightest idea what was on
the surface in that scale."

In April 1978, Langley turned Project Viking over to NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, CA. Today, JPL manages
the Mars Exploration program, a two-decade-long effort to answer
fundamental questions about Mars' early evolution and its
ability to support life.

Since Viking, NASA's missions to Mars have included the ill-
fated Mars Observer, the successful Mars Pathfinder lander and
Sojourned rover, the prolific Mars Global Surveyor (still
operating in orbit around Mars), and the Mars Climate Orbiter
and Mars Polar Lander, both of which failed as they neared Mars.
The 2001 Mars Odyssey explorer is more than halfway to the Red
Planet and is due to arrive in orbit on Oct. 23.

In 2003, NASA plans to launch twin geology-laboratory rovers to
the surface, each the size of a desk and capable of travelling
up to 110 yards a day from their landing site. Other missions,
including landers and orbiting missions, will follow every 26
months.

More information about NASA's Mars Exploration program is
available on the Internet at:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov

                              -end-

                             * * *

NASA press releases and other information are available
automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message to
domo@hq.nasa.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject
line) users should type the words "subscribe press-release" (no
quotes).  The system will reply with a confirmation via E-mail
of each subscription.  A second automatic message will include
additional information on the service. NASA releases also are
available via CompuServe using the command GO NASA.  To
unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail message to
domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only
"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the
message.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:23:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:54:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Hatch


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:36:17 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:19:33 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 ><snip>

 >John wrote:

 >>I'm sorry man. I don't speak for anybody but me, but I'm here to
 >>tell you that I won't do it. I am a strong supporter of the push
 >>for disclosure, but I do not support Dr.Greer. (For all of the
 >>above reasons.) I can't believe that you guys are willing to
 >>"look the other way" in the name of expedience.

 >Kind of reminds me of politics. For example when Clinton was
 >cutting defense, cutting back bombers, bases and missiles the
 >"conservatives" howled and yelled about how he was destroying
 >our military, our defense blah blah blah.

 >Now President Bush, through SecDef has proposed cutting back the
 >b-1 bomber force by a third, retiring and removing all of our
 >latest ICBM's, the peacekeepers, proposed closing 25 military
 >bases...which the joint chiefs supported because they want to
 >use the savings to upgrade and buy "much needed weapons systems"
 >plus according to SecDef he is attempting to find "25-30 billion
 >dollars in additional savings in the defense budget." Not to
 >mention cutting the nuclear warheads down by 600 percent.

 >These same conservatives who howled and yelled when Clinton
 >proposed cuts now are silent. Its called "our guy is in
 >power..."


Hello Robert:

No big disagreement on the main points, but how do you or anyone
cut anything back by 600 percent?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                          Secrecy News -- 07/17/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:09:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:55:33 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 07/17/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
July 17, 2001

**BAMFORD "LIBERTY" ACCOUNT REPUDIATED
**POSTOL SECRECY ABUSE ALLEGATIONS DISPUTED
**CHINA: HOW BIG A THREAT?


BAMFORD "LIBERTY" ACCOUNT REPUDIATED

Key aspects of author James Bamford's recent account of the 1967
Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty are being disavowed by some
of his own sources.

The Liberty, an American spy ship, was sailing in the
Mediterranean Sea off the Sinai coast when it was attacked on
June 8, 1967 by Israeli air and naval forces towards the end of
the 1967 war.  There were 34 Americans killed and 171 wounded.
The Israeli government claimed the attack was an "error";  some
U.S. officials, and surviving Liberty crew members, have
contended that the attack must have been deliberate.  But why?

In his new bestseller "Body of Secrets," Bamford proposes a
motive for the attack:  Israel, he says, was in the process of
murdering several hundred Egyptian prisoners of war at nearby El
Arish and wanted to prevent the Liberty from preserving recorded
evidence of the massacre.

But there appears to be no verifiable evidence that such a
massacre ever took place, and Bamford's description of events at
El Arish doesn't hold up.  Thus, he attributes to Israeli
journalist Gabi Bron a claim that 150 prisoners were executed
there.  But Bron himself denies that and says "there were no
mass murders."

Meanwhile, Bamford infers that the Israelis must have known that
they were attacking an American ship because, as he discovered,
an American surveillance aircraft was flying overhead at the
time and it recorded Israeli pilots' references to a U.S. flag.

But Bamford's source, the American airman and linguist who
recorded those communications, reached an "opposite" conclusion.
Marvin E. Nowicki wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal
(16 May 2001) that the Israeli military forces "prosecuted the
Liberty until their operators had an opportunity to get close-in
and see the flag, hence the references to the flag."  The
attack, he believes, "was a gross error."

These and other disputed points in Bamford's account are
presented in a fierce critique by Michael Oren in the latest
issue of The New Republic ("Unfriendly Fire," 23 July).  That
article is not available online, but an earlier article by Oren
entitled "The U.S.S. Liberty: Case Closed" appeared in the
Israeli neoconservative journal Azure (Spring 2000) and may be
found here:

http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-Oren.htm

James Bamford has done more than any other individual to shed
light on the National Security Agency and to promote public
accountability of this intensely secretive organization, dating
back to his landmark 1982 book "The Puzzle Palace."  The list of
his reportorial coups to the present day is long and impressive.

His new chapter on the Liberty itself contains significant new
information and reporting.  But his tendentious interpretation
of the event is a salutary reminder that even the best reporters
can get it wrong, and that readers ultimately have to be their
own critics.

In response to a number of reviews pointing out defects in his
argument that the Israeli attack was deliberate, Mr. Bamford has
lately taken a somewhat defensive posture.  "It's not my job to
provide definitive proof," he said at a recent book-signing.  "I
didn't have the time or the money to look into all of the
details."

Rather, he said, he hoped to prompt a congressional
investigation into the matter and to promote declassification of
documents such as the transcript of the recordings made by the
American surveillance aircraft.

Documentation on the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty will
be printed in "Foreign Relations of the United States,
1964-1968, volume XIX, Six-Day War" which is tentatively
scheduled for publication next year.

The National Security Agency and the Defense Department are now
conducting a declassification review of documents for
publication in that volume.  The NSA exceeded the nominal
deadline for declassification in May, but told the State
Department that its review should be completed by August of this
year.  No description of the documents under review has been
disclosed.


POSTOL SECRECY ABUSE ALLEGATIONS DISPUTED

Prof. Ted Postol, a leading critic of the national missile
defense program, warned last year that the Ballistic Missile
Defense Office (BMDO) might be "attempting to illegally use the
security and classification system to hide waste, fraud, and
abuse" after it classified a letter that he wrote to the White
House criticizing the program.

But a new General Accounting Office report finds that BMDO was
within its rights, because portions of the attachments to Dr.
Postol's letter had been inadvertently released and were still
officially classified.

"DOD's actions were performed in accordance with Executive Order
12958 [on classification of national security information]," the
GAO wrote in a letter to Rep. Ed Markey that was released on
July 12.  The GAO letter, and the underlying Postol
correspondence, may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/07/gao-postol.html

Dr. Postol told InsideDefense.com (12 July 2001) that the GAO
had incorrectly characterized his encounter with Defense
Security Service officials, and said there were a number of
factual errors in the GAO review.

The General Accounting Office is conducting a separate review of
allegations of scientific fraud in the missile defense program.


CHINA: HOW BIG A THREAT?

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) pressured the RAND
Corporation to provide a hawkish assessment of the future threat
from China, and fired RAND from a classified project last month
when its analysts failed to offer a sufficiently gloomy
evaluation, according to U.S. News and World Report.

"As RAND held conferences with experts and conducted its
analysis, it seemed that [its] eventual report would depict
China as a growing military power -- but as no match for the
United States in the near future. The NIC -- itself under
pressure from Republican hawks in Congress -- appeared to be
looking for a different, more alarming conclusion," the U.S.
News story stated.

"Faced with resistance from RAND, according to some sources, the
NIC decided to seek a more compliant contractor.  A senior
intelligence official denies that the NIC was shopping for a
predetermined result."

See "China: How Big a Threat?" by Richard J. Newman and Kevin
Whitelaw in U.S. News and World Report, 23 July 2001, here:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/010723/world/china.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
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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:57:27 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:58:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Gehrman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:24:59 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:55:57 -0700

 >>No, I have not spoken to the cameraman but I have communicated
 >>with him through Ray while I was working with the MP. Ray was
 >>interested in the MP's story because he thought the MP might be
 >>verification of the cameraman's story. The cameraman asked the
 >>MP several questions and because of the answers, we determined
 >>that they were players in two separate ballgames. I found the
 >>cameraman's questions helped my investigation and showed me that
 >>he's still participating in some fashion.

 >I think the real point is that you have not spoken to the
 >cameraman at all. I too, have passed a list of questions on to
 >the cameraman, back in 1995, and mine haven't been answered.
 >Maybe they were a little tougher.

Kevin,

You're correct; I have not spoken directly with the cameraman
and cannot verify his existence. The questions were not designed
to be "tough' and in fact it was the cameraman who asked
questions of the MP. I was primarily a go-between. Both the
cameraman and the MP seemed to be very interested in what the
other was asking and also seemed very intent on giving helpful
information.

 >And, if I understand what you say, the MP didn't confirm the
 >cameraman's story, so you have decided that he was involved in a
 >different recovery of an alien craft.

Yes that is correct. The MP and the cameraman were at different
crash sites. The MP's was the 3rd and 4th of July and the
cameraman's was on the 31st of May through the 2nd of June. The
cameraman's crash site was located at the base of the Magdalena
Mts. and the MP's was somewhere south of hwy 380 and west of hwy
54 in the area known as the Jornada Del Muerto, about two hours
and forty five minutes west of Roswell, by the MP's reckoning.

 >>There must have been some reason; secrecy perhaps. I agree with
 >>Grant. Folks in power do exactly as they damn well please. Yes
 >>the cameraman's story is outrageous on the face of it (but too
 >>surreal for Ray to invent).

 >Sorry, but the cameraman was not one of those in power, but one
 >of the flunkies who was dispatched to take pictures. When
 >protocols are violated, normally it is red tape rather than
 >protocols that deal with highly classified materials. In this
 >case, there is no reason for the protocols to be violated, so
 >not only do we have something that is far from the established
 >procedure, we have no reason for that procedure to be rejected.
 >It's a double problem.

The cameraman was just following orders and although he violated
"protocol" he was ordered to do so, I guess for secrecy's sake.
And as the Daniel Sheehan story illustrates, protocols cannot be
used as a way to discredit unusual circumstances. Those who
claimed that Sheehan's facts were bullshit because somehow
untold numbers of protocols had been violated are now shown to
be mistaken.

 >>And if not the cameraman then who
 >>did create the footage. Ray?

 >But the film (or rather the video tape) can be explained without
 >the cameraman. It is a hoax. It was invented. From what you have
 >said, Santilli did not have the technical expertise to fake it,
 >but he did have the knowledge to turn the tent footage over to
 >someone else who apparently did have such expertise. We now
 >know, thanks in no small part to the research of Philip Mantle
 >and his colleagues, that the tent footage is a hoax. That
 >certainly doesn't bode well for the other footage that has been
 >offered, without provenance, by Santilli.

I don't know how many times I have to write this but Ray was the
victim of hoaxers and not the perpetrator of a hoax. He asked
them to see if they could transfer some damaged fragments of
footage to video. They then created the hoaxed tent footage and
told Ray the it was legitimate. He was not part of this except
to supply the old and damaged footage. This information has been
distorted, just as you are now doing to give the impression that
Ray hired out the AA.

 >I have driven from Albuquerque to Socorro and from Roswell to
 >Socorro, and the drive from Roswell is much worse. I have a map
 >made by the state of New Mexico in 1947. It shows that the
 >highway from Albuquerque to Socorro is primary highway,
 >obviously two lanes, and is paved the whole way. According to
 >the map, it is just under 80 miles from Albuquerque to Socorro.

Yes, that's true but it was a very slow drive because of the
factors I mentioned previously. It also it takes a while just to
get from Kirkland Field to Hwy 25.

 >Roswell requires a drive that is on a combination of paved,
 >gravel and graded roads. In other words, in some places the road
 >was little more than a track plowed through the high desert.
 >Even today, some of that road, while paved with blacktop, is
 >narrow and has no shoulders. And, according to the map, it is
 >nearly 160 miles from Roswell to Socorro, or twice as far.

Yes that's correct but you could travel relatively fast on those
roads because there was so little traffic so I still insist that
there wouldn't be that much of a time difference when everything
is considered. And remember we must consider the secrecy factor.
Hwy 380 would be much more secure to travel along and absolutely
no traffic pproblems and less chance of being noticed.

 >This doesn't even consider the fact that in 1947, Roswell was a
 >SAC base and Albuquerque was an AMC base. Wright Field, where
 >the cameraman said they went first is also an AMC base. While it
 >is certainly true that AMC aircraft could, and did, land at SAC
 >bases, it makes more sense from them to fly into the AMC base
 >because it was only half as far from the airfield to Socorro.

I don't think distance was a factor. There were other things to
consider. We have no idea of what they were thinking. The
cameraman said he landed in Roswell and those who stayed on site
were supplied from Roswell. The distance or ease of travel has
nothing to do with the cameraman's story. He was just following
orders.

 >>>Why didn't he use color film
 >>>for the autopsy? Especially the one in the brightly lighted
 >>>room? Where was the still photographer and the stationary motion
 >>>picture camera? Why weren't these protocols followed? They had
 >>>time to set it up because this was what, four or five weeks
 >>>after the crash?

 >>I'm very familar with Longo's objections but I'm sorry I don't
 >>buy into this. The cameraman shot the footage the way he was
 >>instructed and developed it himself. That story hasn't changed.
 >>Protocals were not followed! That's clear and no one ever said
 >>they were.

 >They _told_ him to shoot it in black and white? For heaven's
 >sake, why?

I have no idea.

 >And why violate the protocols? There was no reason not to use
 >them because they had time to set up the autopsy properly. It
 >wasn't something that had to be done right at this moment with
 >what was on hand, but something that could be planned. So, the
 >violation of the protocols, the failure to use color film, the
 >failure to have a still camera present, all suggest a hoax.

 >If you are going to violate the protocols, there must be a
 >reason to do it. If there is no compelling reason, then the
 >protocols would have been followed.

Again I have no idea why protocols were violated but I'm glad
they were. I suppose the compelling reasons were secrecy and
secrecy and perhaps a little more secrecy on top of that. The
fewer folks involved, and the simpler the procedures, the less
chance for a SNAFU. But SNAFUs cannot be avoided because when it
comes right down to it, the hierarchical nature of the Armed
Forces makes them vulnerable to mistakes of all kinds, no matter
what protocols are in place.

 >>I agree, the cameraman's identity is probably known to the
 >>controllers. They have each other in a death grip that will
 >>continue until the cameraman dies. The government can't possibly
 >>prosecute because that would lend credence to the AA and its
 >>providence.

 >Actually, they could prosecute him for income tax evasion
 >without ever getting into what he sold... all they have to do is
 >prove that he sold something and didn't pay the proper taxes on
 >it. They can say that they don't believe the film authentic, it
 >has already been aired on broadcast television so it would come
 >as no surprise to the public, and they can say they are
 >uninterested in its origin. All they care about is that income
 >tax should have been paid and it was not.

 >That says nothing about the authenticity of the film, it says
 >nothing about its provenance, they are not revealing anything
 >that has not already played on network television more than
 >once, or that hasn't been featured in any number of national
 >magazines and books, they can even point to those of us in the
 >UFO field who believe the film to be faked, and still make the
 >case that the cameraman not only didn't pay taxes on the sale,
 >but conspired with Santilli to avoid paying those taxes. The
 >cameraman is toast.

Well they haven't so far. There must be some reason for their
reluctance to bring charges.

 >>But they've probably limited the cameraman's options
 >>by threatening him with grim prospects if he ever reveals
 >>himself , which according to Ray, he never intended in the first
 >>place. He has stated that he is ashamed of his actions and
 >>doesn't want to be know as a person who would break his oath of
 >>secrecy for money.

 >Which, of course, he is. He did break his oath for money, and if
 >he really exists, he is known to those who would have access to
 >the records. And they could get him without ever revealing a
 >thing about the film that wasn't already known to the public.

But they haven't. And I know they would if they had the desire
to do so. The government realizes the footage is authentic and
isn't interested in drawing attention it. If the general public
begins to take a close look at the AA, questions will begin to
surface that might prove embarrassing to the controllers.

 >>In NM you can see everything in the night sky and experienced
 >>sky watchers as the Wilmonts were would certainly have
 >>recognized "natural phenomena". The Wilmonts, highly respected
 >>citizens of Roswell, must have seen something very unusual if
 >>they reported it.

 >And how do you know that the Wilmots were experienced sky
 >watchers, and if they were, they couldn't be fooled by something
 >they thought unusual?

One of the great pastimes in NM is looking at the sky. Maybe
they weren't experienced but what they described doesn't sound
natural to me. What natural event or occurrence does it bring to
your mind?

 >>The object they described was a classic UFO: " Oval in shape
 >>like two inverted saucers". It was about 1500 feet in the air
 >>and going directly toward Corona at 500-600MPH.. Some red
 >>herring!

 >So, what makes you think that this was the object that crashed?
 >Granted, this is how Bill Moore came up with the July 2 date,
 >but it really is speculative, based on the assumption that the
 >Wilmots didn't make a mistake about what they saw, that they did
 >have the date right, and it was the object that crashed. Seems
 >to me that there are quite a few assumptions in there.

You're correct. We have no way of knowing whether this was the
object that crashed. I was mainly concerned with your
characterization of the Wilmonts' testimony as a "red herring"
when in actuality it may be an important piece of the Roswell
puzzle.

 >I have seen the debris footage and I have looked at if very
 >carefully, and I see the word "video" in a string of other
 >symbols. It jumps out at you and because I can see it doesn't
 >make it a lie to say that I see it. And I see that you agree
 >that there are some symbols/letters that resemble the word
 >video... so how can this be "close to a lie" if you can see the
 >same thing yourself? And isn't that language a bit strong?

Perhaps a bit strong (see Neil's post), but you must be looking
at a very blurred version of the AA debris. I agree with Neil
that what you call a "V" is actually a delta. The "I" resembles
the Phoenician symbol for our modern "Z" and the "E" is actually
two back-to-back "E"s and is almost exactly the same as the
Phoenician symbol for our modern "X". The resemblance of these
symbols to ancient scripts is, I believe, more than
circumstantial.

 >If I see compelling evidence, if better evidence is offered, if
 >all of it makes some sense in the context of what we know, as
 >opposed to what we think, or what we think we know, then yes, I
 >would change my mind.

We can discuss this after you view the AA Cds. All we ask is
that you keep an open mind.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                          Filer's Files #29 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:43:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:00:40 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #29 -- 2000


Filer's Files #29 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
July 15, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts, Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,


UFO reports from Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Illinois, Iowa, California, Canada, United Kingdom,
Russia, and Australia.

NEW JERSEY MULTIPLE LIGHTS

CARTERET -- Peter Davenport, Chuck Warren, WABC, CNN, and New
Jersey FM 101.5 have reported that a large UFO was sighted near
the Newark Airport on July 15, 2001. Numerous large bright
lights were reported in a flying triangle pattern moving above
the New Jersey Turnpike around 12:30 AM on Sunday morning July
15, 2001. Peter Davenport received several reports from
witnesses to a cluster of an estimated 15 to 30 golden, or
orange, lights hovering and moving slowly near Newark. The
witnesses were traveling south on the New Jersey Turnpike.
Witnesses had asserted that upwards of 100 cars were seen
stopped on the highway, and many of their occupants were
standing outside the vehicles, apparently watching the
peculiar, V-formation of lights. The Newark Star Ledger carried
an article about the alleged incident in its July 16 issue, and
it reports that the police department in Carteret, NJ, located
just to the southeast of Newark Airport, received dozens of
calls about the incid! ent. In addition, CNN TV-affiliate
station, WNY, in New York City covered the sighing. Peter and
Chuck contacted me and notified me that New Jersey FM 101.5
carried the story on the news beginning each hour. Many callers
to the station reported seeing a huge object.

Some eye witnesses claim to have seen a structure, others did
not. Astronomers claimed there was no meteorite activity. FAA
claimed no aircraft were airborne in the area. Some of the
witnesses were emotionally shaken by the event, although the
nature of it is yet to be determined. The sighting of a flying
triangle UFO was shown on New York City TV station WNBC-TV and
several other New York stations. The sighting was reported and
videotaped by a Carteret Police Officer. The video was shown
and the police officer along with several town residents
including the Mayor were interviewed. The video was of
excellent quality and showed a dark triangular shaped object
against a brighter nighttime sky. The object had bright white
lights on each corner. It was moving too slowly to be
identified as a meteor and NASA confirmed that it was not space
debris. Its movements and lighting configuration were also not
consistent with aircraft. David Stich, who was interviewed by
the Newa! rk Star Ledger, said, "He saw the bursts of light from
those flares didn't look to him like spotlights or anything
else he could recognize."

I interviewed the Right Reverend, Chubenko (who has higher rank
than Monsignor in the Ukrainian Church) by phone who also saw
the object. He sent me the following e-mail. I wanted to report
this sighting, since it occurred at approximately 12:45 AM July
15, 2001, over the town of Carteret, New Jersey. I am an
Orthodox Ukrainian priest -- and my son (who is a funeral
director was going out on a death call) gets in touch with me
via his cell phone at about 12:40 and tells me I need to get
dressed quickly and come outside. He was just getting ready to
get on to the New Jersey Turnpike when he saw a huge collection
of lights numbering about 30 + over the town of Carteret, and,
specifically over the "Carteret Shoprite Shopping Center." I
immediately put on a pair of shorts and slippers and went
outside. By this time, my son was standing in front of the
rectory (which is aside of the church) and was pointing to the
series of lights moving in an easterly direction towards State!
n Island. The Lights were arrayed in a series of triangular
forms, but I only counted 13 or 14 lights. I say 13 or 14
because I was so taken by them that I didn't want to take my
eyes off of them to count them twice. The entire group of
lights was moving from right to left (east) and totally in
unison. As they were moving, a light would "drop" a "new" light
from it (less intense than itself) and the "new" light would
fade away. Immediately after that, the light that just
"dropped" the new light would also fade out. This happened
about five times as the collection of lights continued to move.
As the entire sequence of lights continued to move behind the
buildings to my immediate left, I had to move to our parking
lot to see them and as I did, I began to lose sight of the
group of lights until there was only one light and then none at
all!

This was the strangest phenomenon I have ever seen. I estimate
that the lights were no more than 3-4000 feet above the town. I
am a private pilot, so I have a little idea of height and some
sense of distance in the sky. These lights made absolutely no
noise and moved with such precision that they resembled a huge
craft, yet I get the sense that they were individual lights and
not one large craft. They definitely were not a meteor shower
as a neighbor of mine neither yelled to me nor were they stars
moving. They were a "calculated" series of high intensity
lights moving in a specific direction. At this point, I can
only call them UFO's and that they definitely were. I only wish
I knew what they were doing here? If anyone else saw them or
can explain their purpose, I certainly would be interested in
hearing about it. Thanks to Rt. Rev. Taras Chubenko, Pastor,
St. Demetrius Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral 645 Roosevelt Ave.
Carteret, NJ 07008. The sky was totally clear - ! no wind -
stars were visible in the sky as well as approaching aircraft
to Newark. There were no aircraft in the vicinity of the
"lights" and my son commented that the airplanes which were on
approach to Newark airport were lower than usual. Thanks to Rt.
Rev. Taras Chubenko.

Editor's Note: I had a long talk with Father Chubenko who is an
excellent witness and was also trained as an electrical
engineer. He estimated the lights were 400 to 500 yards apart
and connected to the same object, since they did not change
their relative position and brightened and dimmed together. It
looked like a huge triangle of lights. I asked if the lights
might be flares dropped from aircraft? He felt this was
impossible because the lights brightened and dimmed in a
synchronized operation. It was obvious all the lights were
connected to the same object. Multiple witnesses also claim
they do not believe these were parachute flares, blimps, or
other similar phenomena. I'm driving up to interview several
witnesses tomorrow and trying to get a copy of the videotape
made by Carteret Police. Thanks to Peter Davenport and Chuck
Warren.http://www.UFOcenter.com Hotline: 206-722-3000

US CONGRESS HEARS TESTIMONY ON ALIEN LIFE

WASHINGTON -- The US Congressional House Subcommittee on Space
Science is now encouraging research into extraterrestrial life
beyond the Earth. Congressman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said "The
discovery of life in the universe would be one of the most
astounding discoveries in human history. Funding should match
public interest and I don't believe it does." Funds for the
search for extra terrestrial intelligence (SETI) was deleted
from the federal budget in 1994, but new findings in the last
several years have increased the likelihood for ET life.
Scientists testified that the dramatic new discoveries of 50 +
planets have been found in orbit of sun-like stars outside our
own solar system. Researchers now believe that planets may be
common through out the universe. Logically, planets are the
first essential step toward finding life. Researchers, also,
expect to find Earth size planets in the near future when new
technology is available in a new space observatory now under
con! struction. Liquid water has now been found on the moons of
Jupiter and in the orbit of at least one distant star. Mars
also has water at least in the past. The SETI Institute
searches the heavens with radio telescopes using private
donations despite the fact Federal Funds were cut off.

Editor's Note: It is interesting that Congress is more
interested in supporting SETI after the Disclosure Projects
lobbying. Life may exist on planets far more hostile than our
own perhaps even in underground bases. Our indications are that
aliens do not use radio commutation, which is an old form of
signaling similar to smoke signals.

NEW STAR WARS SYSTEM ACCELERATED

The Pentagon hopes to accelerate its plan to deploy the first
elements of its Star Wars missile defense system. Tests of the
system made a major successful intercept of a ballistic missile
over the Pacific Ocean on July 14, 2001. Deputy Secretary of
Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, told the Senate armed services
committee that in addition to a ground-launched system based
initially in Alaska, America would develop a "multi-layered
shield" within four years. This would include ship-based
missiles and laser weapons carried on 747 type aircraft. Five
test-missile silos will be built at Fort Greely in Alaska by
2003. Wolfowitz said, "The short-range missile threat to our
friends, our allies and our deployed forces arrived a decade
ago. The intermediate-range missile threat is here now, and the
long-range threat to American cities is just over the horizon
-- a matter of years, not decades, away -- and our people and
our territory are defenseless." Nations such as North Korea,
Iraq, ! and China are building missiles that could strike the US
and other countries before a defense system is in place. Lt.
General Ron Kadish reports the US Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization conducted a successful fourth test of its
technology, with a simulated missile attack being intercepted a
100 miles above the Pacific by an antiballistic missile.

Editor's Note: This technology would also be useful in
attempting to attack UFOs.

RHODE ISLAND FLYING TRIANGLE

NARRAGANSETT-- The witness reports that on July 4, 2001, we
were setting off a few fireworks on a cliff by the ocean shore
at dusk. We observed a Roman candle set off behind us and
turned to watch its smoke trail and saw a trapezoid-shaped,
black object. It was moving slowly and silently at an altitude
of no more than 2,000 feet at 9:00 PM. I called out to my two
sons, a friend, and my nephew who all watched with me as the
"object" continued to move east out over the ocean in between
the haze and dark clouds at a speed of no more than 50 or 60
mph. The object then accelerated to about 100-150 mph and then
seemed to vanish within the clouds. We were all deeply awed,
and all of us reported seeing the exact same shape, height, and
speed of this object--we all dismissed it as too large to be a
"stealth fighter or bomber," or even a large dirigible. We
estimate it to be about 80 or 90 feet tall and about 600 feet
the length of two football fields. Thanks to Peter Davenport N!
UFORC

NEW JERSEY HIGH SPEED CRAFT

OLD BRIDGE -- Sam Sherman the President of Independent
International Pictures writes, I have had several impressive
UFO sightings over the years and so am always watchful of
unusual phenomena in the skies. On the morning of July 2, 2001,
I was driving north on route 9 from Old Bridge, New Jersey and
was passing through Sayreville as I spotted what looked like
the bright metal edge of a plane in the sky. Only this object
was flying across the sky in front of me at least five or six
times the speed of the average plane in the sky. The object
passed over the road in front of me, at what looked like a
sixty-degree angle to the ground from my perspective in my car.
The object headed from east. I thought to myself: "that plane
is really flying fast." Moments later what looked like the same
object headed from east to west in front of me at about the
same speed. I could only see a bright metal edge, no wings, or
anything else raised from its surface. Seeing it closer and
flyin! g back in the opposite direction so fast made me wonder
what it might be. Thanks to Sam Sherman

PENNSYLVANIA MOVIE WITH MEL GIBSON

DOYLESTOWN -- Bill Hamilton writes Mel Gibson is playing a
farmer in M. Night Shyamalan's movie "Signs," which will be
filmed outside Philadelphia starting in September. After a
lengthy search of area farmland, producers have decided to film
the movie at Doylestown's Delaware Valley College, a private
four-year school known for its agricultural program. "Everyone
knows he's coming and all the girls are waiting," said Mitzi
Weikel, a student working on campus this summer. The college
has signed an agreement to rent 100 acres of its cornfields
through the end of the year. Filming is expected to start in
September. Gibson plays a farmer who discovers large circles
and other patterns in his fields.

ILLINOIS NEON BLUE EGG SHAPED OBJECT FELL FROM SKY

COUNTRYSIDE -- An egg shaped object with a bluish green color
was seen falling from the sky straight down on July 1, 2001. At
first it was small but increased in size as it came closer to
the ground and veered northwest for 2-4 seconds at 10:44 PM. It
disappeared in low clouds. The object was larger than a duel
prop airplane and it had a lot of mass and color. There were no
flashing lights on it and it was flying too slowly to be a
meteoroid. It had a neon blue trail and as it came to the
ground it leveled out to 35 degree angle heading for the ground
and disappeared about 400 feet above the ground. It was large
enough to make a loud crashing noise but there was no sound at
all.

NORMAL -- The witness reports, my friend and I both saw
something as we were walking across the street on July 1, 2001,
at 10:30 PM. We saw an extremely bright greenish blue light
appear directly in front of us in the middle of the sky and
shot rapidly down and disappeared as quickly as it had
originally appeared. There was a bright red trail behind the
object and it made no noise. We realize that today's date is
close to the 4th but we know that what we saw was not a
firework of any kind. We saw something strange that but we both
know was NOT a firecracker, airplane, shooting star, or comet.
We are not crazy, we are just convinced we have seen something
that warrants some sort of an explanation. NUFORC spoke to the
witness and found him to be a quite credible and
serious-minded. Thanks to NUFORC www.uforcenter.com

TENNESSEE FRIED DEAD BIRDS FALL OUT OF SKY

HARTSVILLE -- Ron Hannifin writes that on July 6, 2001, at
about 10:45 AM, radio station WJKM and CMR (Country Music
Radio), was knocked off the air by a very powerful strange
energy blast! There was a crystal clear blue sky, no clouds,
nor lightning! All the radio station's lines were knocked out,
several power transformers were blown, ISDN and all phone lines
in the area were knocked out! The radio station transmitter was
damaged; all computers and electronic equipment were damaged.
In the back of the radio station were DEAD FRIED BIRDS! Their
wings, tails, and feet severely burned. Many of the birds were
still alive but badly burned. Some kind of large electrical or
plasma seems to have struck the area. Some blame an offline
nearby nuclear plant. Witnesses claim to have seen a triangular
shaped craft overhead. Silent black helicopters at all hours of
the night and military C-130's have been observed heading in as
if to land or leaving the area nose up like they ha! ve just
taken off. Some people speculate the HAARP or government E/M-P
facilities may be responsible. Thanks to Ron Hannivig

IOWA ORANGE LIGHT

My name is David and I am a student at Iowa State University in
Ames Iowa. On July 9, 2001, about 12:30 AM, I witnessed
something from my 3rd floor balcony almost directly overhead. I
saw a whitish/orangish light (orb) moving southeast. The
intensity of the light was about that of a medium, to
medium-bright, star. The light with the orange hue was constant
and not blinking or pulsing. It was very high and appeared to
be moving at a very high rate of speed, considering its
altitude. At first, I thought this light was a very bright
satellite. There are two streetlights on the street below my
apartment, which light up the area to such an extent that I
normally cannot view satellites from my balcony. Last night, it
was darker than usual and I could see more stars than usual.
With that said, the following explains why I still do not think
this was a satellite.

I was following the path of the orange orb for about 10
seconds, during which time it was traveling from the NW to the
SE. The first strange thing I noticed is that it didn't appear
as though the orb traveled in a perfectly straight line. It
seemed to have a slight curve. I was only using the surrounding
stars as a reference, so I cannot say that it had a curve with
a high degree of certainty. The second thing I noticed really
made me question his object. After 10 seconds, and only cutting
through about 5-10 degrees of the sky, the object got very
small and disappeared. From the time it started shrinking, to
the time it vanished, was one-second. I've never seen a
satellite disappear that quickly. This was not a meteor since
it had no tail and wasn't "shooting" downward and it didn't
look like it was burning up. It also lasted at least 10 seconds
(maybe 15) which is longer than any "shooting stars" I've
witnessed. It was also traveling slower than any shooting
stars. ! It was just a strange orange ball moving at a high
constant speed that simply disappeared. I'm not sure what I
saw, I just know I've never seen anything like it before.
Thanks to Dave

MISSOURI "ALUMINUM" LOOKING TRIANGLE "AIRCRAFT

INDEPENDENCE -- On July 4, 2001, it was still very light - I
was in my back yard and heard a very loud, low "jet aircraft"
sound. I was startled as it seemed very low, very close and
very loud. The sound "appeared" immediately before the sighting
at 7:30 PM. I looked up and saw it coming into my view over the
treetops; it passed over my head and I watched it fly out of
sight. It never hovered and it was not moving at an abnormally
fast speed and the movement was very smooth. For as loud and
large as it was, it didn't seem to be going very fast. The
sighting took about 15 sec. It was in the shape of a triangle -
a "brushed aluminum" looking material - with 2 flashing red
lights on the tip of the "wings". It was moving forward. It had
a wide "accordion" design on the underside. It was a very
"strange" experience and I "knew" immediately that I had just
seen something very unusual. I do believe I saw something that
is NOT human.

CALIFORNIA DISC OBSERVED

SACRAMENTO -- ISUR reports that on Friday, July 6, 2001, at
about 6:00 PM, the witness stepped outside of her home in
Carmichael and noticed a round object hovering over the
treetops to the east. The witness indicated that the object was
bright and shiny, but appeared to be rotating as it changed
from shiny to an almost black color. She observed it for at
least 5+ minutes and added that there appeared to be no lights
or other structure, just a round object. There was a haze or
some sort of aura around it, and no sound was detected. She
estimated it may have been a few hundred feet above the
treetops, perhaps a mile away, and about the size of an aspirin
held at arm's length. The object seemed to fade into the clouds
after about 5+ minutes of observation. After this event, the
witness contacted the local news station and was advised that
no other reports had been received. This witness provided ISUR
with a brief but concise and well written report, she was
willing to coo! perate in a more in-depth investigation with
MUFON of California. Although she had been a 'skeptic,' but
knew what she saw! Thanks to Tom Sheets, ISUR Board, State
Director-MUFONGA

CANADA MYSTERY LIGHTS OVER LAKE ERIE, ONTARIO

MORGAN'S POINT -- SASSY1 reports that the witness business
professional, Dirk Vander Ploeg was taking his usual early
morning walk along the shores on Lake Erie, when eyes were
drawn to two bright objects in the southeast skies. One
brighter than the other was conducting maneuvers that could not
have been a terrestrial aircraft. Vander Ploeg immediately
returned to his residence, found his camcorder, and returned to
the shoreline, where the two unknown objects were videotaped
maneuvering for an hour. The objects appear on video to be a
planetary alignment, until they start moving in two opposite
directions -- then returning back to their original locations
over the Lake. At approximately 11:00 a.m., Rob McConnell, the
host of THE 'X' ZONE RADIO SHOW, and a personal friend of
Vander Ploeg arrived and was shown the video tape. After
viewing the footage, McConnell placed several calls to
colleagues in Canada and the United States to see if there was
any explanation for the ! strange maneuvers or if in fact, the
objects were terrestrial. The following contact information can
be used for Dirk Vander Ploeg and Rob McConnell.
xmediagroup@hotmail.com To:para-discuss@yahoogroups.com. Thanks
to SASSY1.

UNITED KINGDOM

YEOVIL -- UFO Magazine reports two gentlemen observed and
photographed nine UFOs which arrived one by one, before
commencing to merge with one another and perform some dazzling
acrobatics on June 28, 2001. These were bright, orange-coloured
objects strikingly similar to those seen, photographed and
videotaped over Fleetwood, Lancashire. YORK -- BBC Radio York
residents reported UFO activity of large flying triangles
between June 15 and July 15. Accounts had also appeared in the
local press. Journalists have been told there were no RAF or
joint-NATO exercises that could be responsible for the sighting
reports, so everyone is asking the same question: what could
they possibly be? An interesting video tape of a red flying
wing, anomalous object filmed over London on July 1, 2001, by
Christopher Martin can be observed at the UFO Magazine website.
Thanks to Graham W. Birdsall Editor of UFO Magazine [UK]
http://www.ufomag.co.uk/

Editor's Note: I encourage that videos and photos should be
placed on web sites and in magazines. I have found that they
are often the same craft described by other witnesses at
various locations through out the world. NATO began giving
various Soviet aircraft specific designations. Large bomber
aircraft had designations such as Bison or Bear. Fighters use
various designations beginning with F such as Flogger and
Firebar, etc. I suggest UFO organizations come up with similar
designations. D for disc, T for triangles etc. I suggest that
many UFOs visit various countries around the world. A better
designation of types is needed. The red flying wing or V shaped
craft might be called Von Rictofen. This same craft was
apparently seen over both New Jersey and New York City on June
2, 2001

RUSSIA CROP CIRCLE

MOSCOW -- The [alien] ones have landed in a field five
kilometers from the city, leaving one of their unmistakable
signs, that is, the 'crop circles'. There is no doubt,
according to UFO researcher Vieceslav Paranuk, a teacher of
mathematics at the University of Majkop in the Caucasus. The
Russian Ministry of Civil Protection has already established a
commission to study the UFO phenomenon. "A man would not be
able to make such circles without someone noticing, and for me
it is verification of the Aliens," said Paranuk in the daily
newspaper, Izviestia. Investigators found a large circle some
19 meters in diameter that was encircled by four others, each
about five meters in diameter, To the center of the larger
circle, there was a 10 cm wide hole 40 cm deep.

This is the second time in four years crop circles have
manifested in the zone and perhaps they have been left by a
spaceship, whose weight would have traced the larger circle
while the four lateral ones would have been the result of
landing gear mechanism of the craft. The news of the return of
the aliens has received great prominence. Russian television
has shown the images of the ears of corn skewed in a clockwise
direction, but left nearly intact. The manifestation of crop
circles is an inexplicable phenomenon, without anyone ever
having found one convincing explanation, in many countries of
the world. The earliest crop circles or circular marks where
recorded in English fields in 1647, and were thought to be the
work of the devil. Later circles in the 1970s were very simple,
but gradually evolved in the 1990s into complex pictograms
composed of lines, angles and spirals. Thanks to Gerry
Farshores - www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ and Il
Messaggero+Il Mattino via Cal! tanet

AUSTRALIA FLYING TRIANGLE

The witness reports, "We were sitting outside having a game in
the back yard on July, 2, 2001, we all quickly glanced up as
something reflected into our eyes almost stopping our vision
for a bit." There was a triangular (flat equilateral triangle)
craft moving across the sky at 11:30 PM. We live next to an
airfield but we didn't know what to make of it. Therefore, we
carried on playing our game. Fourteen minutes later it came
back again, but going the other way. It would occasionally
float across and then vanish again, but this time it was
closer. We rung the airfield and they said that there was only
something reflecting and they couldn't make out what it was. We
started to get very nervous and scared so we went inside and
observed outside while watching TV. Nothing happened until
about 17 minutes later when the TV went off, the phone started
ringing and the fax came through with all types of weird stuff.
I have the fax to prove it. Our cell phones went dead and we !
saw it again but this time it was hovering right over our
house, it slowly picked up speed flew over some trees and we
never saw it again. We live in the country so there are a few
valleys it could have gone down and hidden. We saw a group of
jets fly over the valley just as the craft vanished.

NSC-68: THE DOCUMENT AND THE THREAT THAT LAUNCHED THE COLD WAR

Timothy S. Cooper's new article (UFOs And The Cold War) quotes
Clausewitz: "We are not interested in generals who win
victories without bloodshed. The fact that slaughter is a
horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but
not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the
name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with
a sharp sword and hack off our arms." Carl von Clausewitz, On
War.

This article looks back on the era of escalating cold war fears
of nuclear war, miscalculation, and the illusions of peace
brought on by the misguided trust of failed intelligence and
political judgments at a time when UFO's and Communism merged
as the enemy. It also examines the uneasiness of the Central
Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council during
the Truman Administration regarding the enigmatic UFO
phenomenon which seemingly was concealed through the Defense
Department's Operation MAJESTIC.
http://home.earthlink.net/~lenozze/reports/tim_cooper_nsc_68.ht
ml

THE ANNUAL MUFON SYMPOSIUM will be held July 20 to 22, 2001 in
Irvine, California. The MUFON SYMPOSIUM annually features the
top UFO researchers from around the world. This year is no
exception. There is no other place in the world where you can
hear and meet so many top UFO researchers and scientists at one
time. Everyone reading this flyer should attend a MUFON
SYMPOSIUM at least once. Attendance can be a life-changing
experience. http://www.mufon.com/home.html

PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO shots available and
data on their propulsion systems by US Navy Commander Graham
Bethune. Send $10 to G. Filer at 222 Jackson Road Medford, NJ
08055.

A 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 court
and convince a jury that UFOs are 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.! ! 95 (US) to: David Twichell, P.O. Box 511,
Trenton MI. 48183-0511

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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                  If It's In The Air, Then It's On The Air

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:33:23 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:15:04 -0400
Subject: If It's In The Air, Then It's On The Air


Anyone still interested in listening to commercial aircraft
broadcasts and airport tower, FAA and other fun stuff, in
relation to UFO sightings by pilots, you may write me at
ConsultTCG@ aol.com. I can send you whatever I've sent to
others. I understand that Radio Shack still has the item for
sale... a portable scanner for less than a hundred bucks.

Interestingly enough to surprise me was the interest and the
stick-to-itiveness of the skeptics out there. More than any
single group, these folks were really intereste in this project.

I wish to thank some of you who partook of the aircraft radio
scanner project. Most of all, I want to say "thanks" for your
email. I can assure you that I enjoyed working with you one on
one more than you did. And even got a bit more than I
anticipated, since I was able to garner a significant frequency
list for my own local airports. Here in the upper part of
Westchester, there are four airports.

Newburg, White Plains, LaGuardia and JFK.

With the simple directional antenna I described (I made one
myself, and since I have ten left thumbs, I figgered if I could
build it the way I described it, anyone could), with that
antenna I was able to pull in signals from every one of the
airports. It is true that my new home is located at nearly the
top of one of the highest mountains in the county and this helps
enormously, it is still a feat to grab these relatively low
power signals with a receiver with a sensitivity (20 dB Signal
to Noise) of two micro- volts and a selectivity even worse (-6dB
+/- 10kHz, -50dB +/- 17 kHz).


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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                           Humanoid Contact - 1992

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:51:16 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:17:08 -0400
Subject: Humanoid Contact - 1992


Dear Colleagues,

I have just uploaded the 1992 Case history of Humanoid
Contacts.

Please feel free to read these reports at:

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/1992Cont.html

I would like to thank Albert once again, for his tireless work
and research into these cases, and I am proud to have them at
The Lost Haven web site.

Feedback is welcome on these and other articles on The Lost
Haven. You can contact the author of this work at the bottom of
each article page.


Best Regards,

Roy Hale

Editor: Down To Earth Magazine on The 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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                 Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:36:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:19:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Velez


 >From UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >Source: The Star-Ledger, New Jersey

 >http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/jersey/ledger/13d386c.html

 >Late-night Carteret light
 >show a mystery

 >07/16/01

 >BY DORE CARROLL
 >STAR-LEDGER STAFF

 >A drowsy mother in Carteret saw the flickering golden lights in
 >the sky and ran for her camera. A hard-boiled Navy veteran
 >traveling the New Jersey Turnpike spotted the slow-moving,
 >bright-yellow V-formation and pulled his car to the shoulder to
 >get a better look.

 >Police officers on patrol at 12:40 a.m. yesterday couldn't
 >believe their eyes.

 >Within the hour, Carteret police dispatchers said they heard
 >from at least 15 callers reporting strange orange flares blazing
 >high above the Arthur Kill. The eerie glow had people at
 >backyard barbecues mesmerized, with heads upturned and mouths
 >agape. Almost 75 vehicles pulled over on the New Jersey Turnpike
 >to watch the spectacle.

 >But no one seems to know what caused the luminous vision.

 >Police could not identify the source of the lights, and Newark
 >International Airport authorities reported no unusual flight
 >patterns. A meteorologist with the National Weather Service said
 >nothing in the atmosphere would have caused the bright
 >disturbance, and an airman at McGuire Air Force Base said none
 >of their military planes were in the air at that hour.

 >Whatever it was that lit up the sky above Carteret was by all
 >accounts weird.

 >"It wasn't fireworks, and it couldn't have been a hot-air
 >balloon, not at night near the airfield," said Steven Vannoy,
 >who pulled over on the turnpike with his girlfriend on their way
 >home to Perth Amboy. "What we saw last night qualifies as a UFO.
 >It was an unidentifiable flying object."

 >A Carteret police sergeant on duty called the State Police and
 >neighboring departments in Linden and Woodbridge to find out
 >what was causing the strange glow, but he said none had received
 >reports of the lights.

 >Bob Wanton, a National Weather Service meteorologist in Mount
 >Holly, had no explanation for the lights. "Weatherwise, there
 >was nothing that would have caused it," he said.

 >The aurora borealis, a spectacular show of light high in the
 >northern hemisphere, is seldom visible in New Jersey, said
 >Wanton. The lights normally appear in the winter, he said.

 >"It's very unusual for the northern lights to come down this
 >far, especially at this time of year," he said.

 >On Staten Island, a spokeswoman for the 123rd precinct in the
 >Tottenville section suggested the display might have come from a
 >nightclub on Arthur Kill Road that frequently uses search lights
 >for promotions. The club had been ordered closed by a judge on
 >July 11 and its phone was disconnected yesterday.

 >Airman First Class Andre Steverson said no planes from McGuire
 >Air Force Base were flying at that time.

 >An operations manager at Newark International Airport said there
 >were no reports of unusual activity and said the lights "could
 >have been almost anything," from a group of military helicopters
 >on flight exercises to a blimp.

 >Maybe, said David Stich, who saw the bursts of light from his
 >back yard in Carteret. But those flares didn't look to him like
 >spotlights or anything else he could recognize.

 >"I never in my life saw anything like it," said Stich, a
 >lifelong Carteret resident accustomed to the roar and flight
 >path of aircraft from Newark. He compared the lights to
 >volleyballs, dwarfing the surrounding stars, and said they
 >clearly moved in formation.

 >Around the corner, Pam Russell's husband woke her to see the
 >show. She saw a diamond-shaped pattern in the sky and noticed
 >smaller lights leading the pack and bringing up the rear.

 >"I ran for my camera," said Russell. "But they disappeared."
 >Afterward, she said, the skies were dark and
 >silent.


Hi All,

They made a big deal out of this sighting on -all- the newscasts
in the tri-state area. (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut)
In a one and a half hour period I listened to five different
news reports. CBS ch.2, NBC ch.4, WNEW/Fox ch.5, UPN ch.9, and
the WB ch.11

The reports from WB 11 and UPN 9 were straight news reports
that included many independent witness reports and some great
videotape footage of the event. The other three stations
gave a report but they were accompanied by the mandatory
'giggles' and 'jokes' afterwards by the resident talking heads.

The video footage was impressive. Taken from various locations,
the video footage showed about 15 objects in various
'formations.' One clip showed a triangle formation. Another clip
showed a formation that resembled the Big Dipper. The 'dipper'
formation was reported by several witnesses, two of which
captured good clear video of the event. Another pair of
witnesses said the objects flew into a formation resembling
several stacked straight lines at one point during the display.

Another video clip showed a bunch of cars pulled off the road
(with the objects clearly visible on the sky beyond) so that the
occupants could take in the display. One of them obviously
recorded the tape I was viewing. A Carteret police officer
stated that about 70 cars had all pulled off the road to observe
the strange orange lights.

Many of the witnesses interviewed commented on what a striking
sight it was to watch the objects 'maneuver' into different
formations before they all just disappeared.

People are 'buzzing' about it here. Three people I have spoken
to who know nothing of my involvement in ufology excitedly asked
me if I had heard the report, and what did I think of it. Their
inquiries gave me pause to crack a 'Cheshire Cat' grin.  ;)

Oh Lawdy, puleeze. I hope it -was- the aliens. I hope that the
'Bugs' themselves yank the cover off of this thing, and soon.
Waiting for our government to get off the dime and make the
reality of the alien presence known to all only exacerbates the
aging process. Waiting for ufologists to do it is just a surreal
joke. It's like being trapped in a really cheesy version of a
Fellini movie.


Regards,

John Velez








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 18 Jul 2001 05:56:33 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:21:49 -0400
Subject: Re:  Discovery Channel Documentary - Hamilton


 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:03:41 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:01:15 -0700
 >>Subject: Discovery Channel Documentary
 >>From: Jason Ciaccia <jciaccia@atlasmediacorp.com>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Hello All,

 >Regarding the Discovery Channel's proposed 'documentary'.

 >This is how the message posted to our List is worded for public
 >consumption:

 >>I am an Associate Producer on a documentary about Sleep
 >>Paralysis for the Discovery Channel.

 >>We are producing a quality documentary for The Discovery Channel
 >>that will explore various nocturnal and other "paranormal"
 >>attacks, including alien abduction.

 >Here is how the "private" invitation I received to participate
 >in the program was worded:

 >>We are producing a quality documentary for The Discovery Channel that will
 >>explore various nocturnal and other "paranormal" attacks, including alien
 >>abduction.

 >Notice anything missing from the version that was sent to me?

 >No mention _at_all_ about "sleep paralysis" in the version going
 >out to abductees. Hmmm... I wonder why! ;)

 >"Garbage in... garbage out" I always say. How good is the final
 >product going to be? How good _can it be_ when right off the mark
 >they seek to deceive by convenient (for them) omission?

 >Shades of NOVA!

 >I hope they don't take the testimony they get from abductees and
 >edit it in such a way as to make it all force fit their stated
 >"sleep paralysis" agenda.

 >If that _isn't_ what they're planning... then why the hell don't
 >they let the abductees know _up_front_ that the focus of the
 >program will be "sleep paralysis?" In the version being mailed
 >to prospective participants there is _no_mention_ of the term
 >sleep paralysis at all. Anywhere. Yet, it is the _clearly_ stated
 >focus of this alleged "documentary". (According to the public
 >version of it.)

 >I'm sick and tired of this kind of crap journalism. I strongly
 >suggest to any and all abductees within earshot to think twice
 >about participating in this program. I've seen this 'syndrome'
 >before many times folks. They tell you it's only raining as
 >they piss on your leg.

 >If they are lying up front, (by omission) why expect an honest
 >result on the back side. More _junk_ programming says I. They
 >ought to take the thousands they're spending on it and use it to
 >feed the homeless. Put it to some good use.

 >Boycott this thing!


You bet, John. This is just another example of the slipshod way
the Discovery channels (inc TLC) handles the UFO subject. They
did an abmysmal job on the Phoenix Lights and some other UFO
specials.

Isn't it funny that there are abductee encounters in waking
states? Many my wife had were when she was awake and aware of
what was going on in the environment. She is also a very good
observer. She is also not gullible. Wide awake and sees 3 aliens
in the room. Now, how in the world does one resort to the theory
of sleep paralysis?

I have, on occasion, experienced vivid dreams with subsequent
sleep paralysis. I could not move or open my eyes though I
wished them to be open. My evaluation of what it was I
experienced: sleep paralysis! I have been wide awake with
adrenalin flowing and experienced an encounter in 1993. My
evaluation: Not sleep paralysis! Simple logic.

I have had a fever and experienced visions and distortions. This
is commonly called "hallucination". My evaluation: I experienced
hallucination. I have been clear-headed, awake, alert, and
observant and have seen a silvery disk in the sky. My
evaluation: Not a hallucination. Many other witnesses saw the
same thing. Mass hallucination? Then devise a scientific test to
distinquish between mass hallucination and perceived reality.

The truth of the matter is, John, you and I know that many
hypotheses for the causative agent behind the abduction
phenomena have been proposed, but many of these fail to account
for all the reported facts. Perhaps it is what it seems to be.
What a novel idea?

Oh, and we do not have to say that the unknown entitites are
extraterrestrial or come from the Delta Quadrant either - just
that they are unknown entitites who can manifest themselves in
some strange ways involving apparent violations of known
physical principles or a means of overcoming physical
limitations.

One last thought. This is also not to negate genuine cases of
sleep paralysis where the individual experiences a presence, but
I think we need to delineate those factors that differentiate
phenomena. For instance, the aliens seem to behave like ghosts
in cases of apparitions as reported in the psychic phenomenon
literature. The ghost seems to manifest as a physical person of
flesh and blood, but betrays this obvious appearance by
disappearing or passing through a wall. How do we delineate
those aspects that differentiates the alien from the ghost?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

               Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Murray

From: Martin 'Marty' Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:32:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:23:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Murray


 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:38:06 -0400
 >From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:18:36 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:17:47 -0000

 ><snip>

 >>>Finally, does that snowy "crashed saucer" scene with soldiers
 >>>in parkas standing around it sound familiar to anyone?

 >>The first image that popped into my mind was a movie (or its
 >>re-make) about some saucer entombed in the Antarctic ice.

 >>At one point this hand goes walking across the floor
 >>all by itself. Great movie. Sci-fi buffs will all
 >>remember the name, I can't. 'The Thing'?

 >Yes; more specifically, John Carpenter's 1982 incredible (yes,
 >JC's actually made some good ones...) remake of the 1951 movie.


Howdy All!

Actually, it was a head and not a hand that sprouts legs and
goes walking crablike across the floor to escape being burned
along with the rest of the body. Great film with awesome special
effects. For a good laugh check out Carpenter's "They Live,"
where you can only see the invading aliens by wearing special
sunglasses.


Take care,

Marty Murray










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:12:56 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:31:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:28:34 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:48:29 -0300

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:55:44 -0500

 >>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:37:30 -0300

 >Good Morning all -

 >Thought I would jump in here before Stan rushes off to
 >spread the word again and then gets twenty million emails
 >that he'll have to wade through. Yes, Stan, I know you don't
 >really receive twenty million emails. That was hyperbole.

 >>><snip>

 >>Awfully big snip. Dennis. Does that mean you accept that there
 >>are crash stories I don't accept? and that I have not used Ruth
 >>B's diary to prove there as a crash in the Plains??

 >>>Stan,

 >>>I've honestly forgotten:

 >>>How many crash sites were there, then?

 >>Presuming we are restricting ourselves to SE NM in July 1947, it
 >>appears that there was a debris field on the Foster ranch with
 >>lots of relatively small pieces of peculiar stuff and no
 >>conventional stuff and no bodies. A couple miles East of there
 >>there were apparently the equivalent of crew compartment(s) with
 >>3 or 4 small bodies with 4 fingers grayish brown skin, big
 >>heads, longer upper arms than lower ones.

 >This to keep the MJ-12 papers alive. No good evidence for the
 >escape capsule or crew compartment, but a necessity if the MJ-12
 >papers are to be believed. And, the incorporation of the Glenn
 >Dennis story here, even with parts of that story having eroded
 >completely.

There is a growing body of evidence about bodies a la MJ-12.
Tune in soon. Despite your claims about Glenn, I did _not_ send
Gerald _anything_ about what Glenn told me prior to talking to
Gerald. I sent him background material, responses to my lectures
etc. He told me about a red haired officer and a black
seargeant... completely independent of Glenn having told me the
same thing a couple of weeks earlier.

I repeat: I had sent him _nothing_ about a red haired officer and
black seargeant _before_he_told_me_ about them. No matter how
much _you_ would like to believe this scenario. It _is_ fiction.

This typifies the problem. I have always admired your ability to
create fictional scenarios in your head and then on paper.
Undoubtedly this is a requirement for having published more than
6 dozen books of fiction. What I object to is your converting
what might have been to what must have been.... Honestly
believing that is what happened rather than that is what went on
in your head.

You will recall the scene of Frank Kaufmann supposedly using a
mirror to watch a radar screen from the rest room over at White
Sands?

Total fiction.

You will recall the claim that Moore and I didn't undersand that
the MJ-12 documents were by a military man for a military man. I
had earlier written exactly that.

You will recall claiming that 3 anthropologist were all in the
Plains in early July 1947 and all said that nothing happened
there? I spoke to them again. What each had said was he wasn't
in the Plains then and had heard nothing about a crash... very
different.

You will recall asking me for other documents in which
Hillenkoetter had signed his name Admiral? There is no RHH
signature in the MJ-12 documents.

You will recall that you claimed in a History of UFO Crashes
that you had shown in your UFO Encyclopedia article that none of
the crash saucer stories including Roswell held any water? Your
response after reading your words for the 4th time, which do
indeed make the claim, was that is not what was in your head at
the time. I stressed I am not a psychic.

There is nothing about Roswell in the Encyclopedia. I don't
doubt that you were sceptical about such stories when you began
work with Don S. You have created a whole bunch of claims that
are plausible, but based on your imagination, not on the facts.

Please note I am _not_ saying you are lying. I have come to
believe that you actually believe the mental scenarios. The
evidence doesn't support them.

 >>Over in the Plains there was apparently one almost intact saucer
 >>perhaps 30' in diameter with a gash in one side and 4 small
 >>bodies each with 4 relatively long fingers, large head, big
 >>eyes. At least one was still alive. Very little debris. Bodies
 >>similar in both cases.

 >This to keep the Gerald Anderson tale alive, though the Barnett
 >end of it mentions nothing about one being alive. This also
 >overlooks the fact that Anderson said, at first, one was injured
 >but alive and later said one was injured but dying and another
 >was unhurt. And, it overlooks the fact that Anderson, contrary
 >to what Stan wants to believe, was caught in many lies and
 >forged a number of documents including his telephone bill, his
 >high school transcript, the letter from ValleyJean, and his
 >uncle's diary.

Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence for absence. I agree
Anderson changed a phone bill.He did not change his story about
live vs injured etc. The rest are in your imagination..
plausible but not supported by evidence other than your wishful
thinking.

 >>I think thumbs down on the Corn ranch
 >>site especially since Frank Kaufmann admitted to me and other
 >>witnesses that his account was not true.

 >Yes, now that the man is dead we can start these sorts of
 >rumors. You have, of course, a tape recording of Kaufmann
 >admitting to you that his account was not true. You have a
 >letter, signed by him, admitting to you that his account was not
 >true. Isn't it interesting that now he is dead, we begin to hear
 >that he admitted, to you that his account was not true. Who else
 >did he tell, Max Littell? Don Schmitt? Will there ever be any
 >evidence of this, or will it be another example of the creation
 >of testimony, not unlike the insertion of the word "black" into
 >the report by Bill Brazel in an attempt to add a level of
 >corroboration to the Anderson story?

I was at Frank's home with several others. He wanted me there. I
asked if Blanchard had gone to the site per his story to you,
me, and Don. He said "NO." I asked if Marcel had gone to the site
with him as he had claimed. Again No. I wrote this up in my
notes on the meeting sent to the others as well. He was spinning
tales which you had bought. I have come around to the notion
that he did have a military connection for years after 1945

Berliner says, in response to my question about the galleys for
Crash at Corona, Brazel used the N word for the seargeant. I
disagree about many things with Don B. but I have seen no signs
he is a liar. He writes Non-fiction.

 >>Ragsdale at best in my
 >>gray basket over on the Pine Lodge Road.

 >For heaven's sake why? Or, better yet, which version of his
 >story is in your gray basket? The one where he stands off, never
 >gets close to the bodies, and runs as soon as the military shows
 >up, or the version where he sees everything and is pulling gold
 >helmets off the fifteen dead aliens? The one where he is up on
 >the Corn ranch or the one where he is at Boy Scout Mountain? The
 >one in which he doesn't see much of the ship or the one in which
 >it looks as if it collided with another ship and on the inside
 >is a jewel encrusted throne? The version where he has debris and
 >takes it home only to have it stolen, along with his
 >Stradivarius, or the one in which he buries the golden helmets
 >of the alien creatures? Just which version is in the gray
 >basket?

I had much trouble believing he had taken a married woman out to
the Corn ranch site for a merry weekend. The Pine Lodge story
makes far more sense. He told me none of the throne stuff
(another fictional narrative??)

 >Sorry to butt in here, Dennis, but I really would like to know
 >the answers to these questions... and why he was so sure, when
 >the Ragsdale report first surfaced, that it was untrue and why
 >it is now in his gray basket.

Ragsdale was adamant about the site NOT being the Corn ranch
site much as you would like to believe it to support Frank K's
original story.....


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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:32:09 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:35:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:44:09 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:25:15 -0300

 >>>From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:17:47 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>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

 >>>Stan wrote:

 >>>>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 [Anderson] passed a
 >>>>polygraph examination.

 >Tom Carey wrote:

 >>>To Stan and List:

 >>>I cannot believe that you are running Gerald Anderson up the
 >>>flagpole again. Some of us, fortunately, still remember. If you
 >>>recall, we exposed him as a hoaxer almost a decade ago. As a
 >>>result, you and Don Berliner were forced to issue a mea culpa
 >>>concerning the veracity of Anderson. It saddens me to see you
 >>>trying on this old shoe again. Must we go through the entire
 >>>litany of Anderson's fabrications once again?

 >To which Stan replied:

 >>Maybe we should, and replace myths with facts.

 >Stan, Tom, List, all -

 >Yes, let's replace myths with facts. This could be fun.

 >>Yes he changed a
 >>phone bill and has admitted it. He was indeed justifiably angry
 >>at the demonizing of him that was being done.That doesn't
 >>justify the changing. As I recall you did an article demonizing
 >>him in IUR noting he was a poor high school student but not
 >>noting his GED and many subsequent college courses.

 >Interesting, maybe, but wholly irrelevant in this discussion.
 >Yes, his anger would have been justified, had we not already
 >caught him a bunch of other lies and suggested that, as a
 >witness, he wasn't worth much. Of course, much of this was
 >private communication, not directed toward Anderson so he
 >wouldn't have known about the doubts had not someone been
 >telling him these things. Telling him that I was a former
 >intelligence officer, and telling him not to talk to me. Telling
 >him that I wrote romances... which is, of course, a false claim
 >(Stan's term).

I suspect I told him you wrote fiction. Perhaps you are
projecting on to me your telling him not to talk to me? Yes I
did tell him about some of your many attacks on him. Were you
not a former intelligence officer?

 >>You and
 >>others claimed he was in Buskirk's class. No support for that
 >>from Larry Henning, with whom I spoke yet again yesterday . Nor
 >>from other students with whom I spoke who were in the class and
 >>didn't recognize Gerald from his yearbook picture.

You recently brought up Henning.

 >Henning and the Yearbook photograph nonsense are Red Herrings.
 >Dr. Buskirk said that Anderson was in the class, verifying that
 >when he called the Albuquerque High School and asked his friends
 >there to review that record. When I called, I was told by one of
 >the assistant principals that Anderson had taken the
 >anthropology course taught by Buskirk. We know this because
 >there was but a single class in anthropology and Buskirk taught
 >it. So, Henning, who when I asked about a student named
 >Anderson, said, "Jerry Anderson?" is irrelevant.

Funny the first claim was that Buskirk had no memory about GA
and hoped he passed him.

 >Besides, Anderson was at the Albuquerque High School where
 >Buskirk taught. Yes, it was spread through three buildings, but
 >isn't that a huge coincidence... that Anderson and Buskirk would
 >see a crashed flying saucer in 1947 and ten years later be at
 >the same high school. Isn't it odd that Stan insists on talking
 >about the students in the class rather than the teacher of it
 >and the administrators of the school who have access to the
 >records?

You have still not provided any evidence he was in the class.
You forgot to mention that Gerald was only in the high school
for 1 year not a few years. So how many
archeologists/anthropologists taugh high school courses in all
of NM then?

 >>People have claimed he wasn't in the Seals, apparently because
 >>some guy told Kevin he didn't recall him.. Real evidence that.
 >>It is claimed he faked the uncle's diary. Basis?? I had tests
 >>done. The ink predated Roswell noise.

 >Some guy? He was the head of the SEALs museum in Miami and a
 >former member of the Navy SEALs himself. According to him, in
 >the 1960s, there weren't many SEALs. They all knew one another.
 >They don't know Anderson. Do you have any proof that he was a
 >SEAL? Have you attempted to retrieve his record from the Records
 >Center? If not, why not? Oh, yes, research by proclamation and
 >the false claim (Stan's term) that Anderson was a SEAL.

What will you say if proof is provided? I just checked on
somebody's claim that an individual had gone to Stanford. I got
an email from the registrar's office saying he was not. That is
evidence. Where is yours?

 >And no, the ink didn't predate the Roswell noise. It was a
 >formula developed in 1974 and therefore proved that Anderson's
 >diary couldn't have been written in 1947 as he had falsely
 >(Stan's term) claimed.

By Roswell noise I was speaking of the first book in 1980,
Berlitz and Moore.

 >It didn't prove that the diary couldn't
 >have been written, oh, after January 1990 when Anderson saw the
 >"Unsolved Mysteries" segment. Research by proclamation.

 >Let's not forget that Anderson changed the description of the
 >alien creatures, changed the number of dead, dying and living,
 >changed moss agate to moss agate and banded agate when he
 >learned that moss agate wasn't found around the Plains, claimed
 >he could read at five and then that he couldn't, changed the
 >location of the crash site and the shape of the craft he saw,
 >and on and on. All these are good reasons to believe that
 >Anderson's story is not grounded in reality.

All intereting scenarios. Pretty soon you will be claiming that
you met with Anderson

 ><snip>

 >>I take it you have some evidence that her excursion was the only
 >>one made by Victor? Come off it Tom. When I mention names they
 >>get totally ignored or demonized. How about Johnny Foard?

 >Yes, Stan, how about Johnny Foard? I was the first to talk with
 >him and the one who found him. He told me that he remembered
 >talk of a crash on the Plains, but couldn't remember when he had
 >first heard it. He thought it could have been after the
 >publication of The Roswell Incident, which makes the story of
 >little real value, especially when he is unable to supply much
 >in the way of detail.

 >>How
 >>about Colonel Leed? How about Harold Baca? Vern and Jean
 >>Maltais?

 >Yes, all very nice people, but all who are traced back to Barney
 >Barnett.

Is there any reason to say Barney was a liar? Leed heard Moore
and I on a radio program. I called him later. He came up with
the name Barnett./.. not me. A solid citizen indeed.. as was
Barney.

 >>Robert Drake?

 >Yes, Robert Drake who allegedly heard the story from an
 >unidentified cowboy in 1947, but there is no verification of
 >this and his story. He surfaced after the publication of The
 >Roswell Incident.

I searched and eventually found him because his name was on a
published paper.

 >>How about JG? I presume they don't count
 >>because they say what you don't want to hear. Tough luck.

JG says he went out there after his father told him the story.

 >They don't count here because they can't be used to corroborate
 >the Plains of San Agustin story because they basically can be
 >traced back to the same source. When it is all boiled down, you
 >have Barney Barnett.

 >>>Tom Carey

 >>I am glad to hear you were out in the Plains. I am sorry to hear
 >>you present such a loaded picture of what Victor and others have
 >>done. Of course there is a lot of noise to go with the signal.
 >>Selective choice of data and demonization are hardly scientific
 >>tools.

 >Stan, you forgot research by proclamation there. What we have
 >with Anderson is a man who was caught lying about his interview
 >with me, lied about his telephone bill and forged a document to
 >prove it. Lied about his anthropology class... Let's get a
 >letter from the school, sent directly to you, telling us what
 >class Anderson took. That way you both can prove that I'm wrong,
 >that I mislead Tom and the others into believing Anderson took
 >the anthropology, and you can go a long way to rehabilitating
 >the Anderson story. Of course, I will not hold my breath.

Might happen.

 >And write to the Records Center and get Anderson's service
 >record. Let's see if he was a Navy SEAL. He doesn't seem to
 >understand the terminology and has presented no documents to
 >verify this, so let's see what the record has to say. Prove me
 >wrong on this point as well.

Might happen.

 >And, let's stop throwing in Larry Henning. He is irrelevant
 >because the real information came from Anderson's high school
 >teacher and the school itself. No one but you really cares about
 >Henning and what he thinks he remembers.

 >And finally, let's not forget the other lies that Anderson has
 >told over the years.

 >Sorry to butt in here, Tom, but Stan wanted to replace some of
 >the myths with facts and I thought that I could help.


I can understand why you maje a joke instead of responding to my
response to your response about the false claims.


MUFON 2001 might be fun.

Stan Friedman, in haste.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                  Re. Discovery Channel Documentary - PEER

From: Will Bueche <peer@peermack.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:14:04 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:59:30 -0400
Subject: Re. Discovery Channel Documentary - PEER


PEER - Program for Extraordinary Experience Research

We'd like to suggest to our colleagues that they may want to
consider not participating in any Discovery Channel/The Learning
Channel documentaries, due to this network's pattern of behavior
(illustrated by Mr. Velez and by what I am about to share).

I am writing from Dr. Mack's organization, PEER, in Cambridge,
MA. We were nearly a part of a TLC/Discovery documentary last
year in which the producer personally visited us to explain
their intentions, prior to our agreement. She conveyed her deep
appreciation of spiritual dimension of experiences (one of Dr.
Mack's favorite areas), told stories of how she did anthropology
fieldwork in Tanzania (relating to Dr. Mack's work with
non-Western experiencers), and had also spent time with a
Tibetian Lama, and was "moved by the power of their ritual life
and their shamanic experiences." She shared how her cameraperson
had once lived with a tribe of indigenous peoples once for
another documentary (to illustrate their dedication to getting
to the depth of experiences). They explained were going to make
a very fine documentary about alien encounters that went deeper
than any before. We have letters from them that say the same:

"With regards to 'spin' we are neither trying to prove nor
disprove the phenomenon. We are looking to get away from a
polarized question of whether it is physically real or not.
There is clearly something very real happening to people and we
are keen to explore this in all its complexities rather than
make a trivialized, sensational film. It would be very easy to
make a film that debunks or is pro - but�Discovery is looking to
us for a more in-depth and considered program."

While her personal passions may indeed have been truthful, they
lied to our faces about the program - convincingly, I might add.
The only "tell" that they were lying was when they showed up the
next month for taping, I made a casual remark to them that I'd
heard they'd been speaking to some of the more negative people
in the field. They stopped in their tracks and looked at me as
if I'd found them out. I shrugged it off, but sure enough,
within months I learned they'd decided to cut Dr. Mack out of
the documentary because what he said didn't match what they
wanted - so much for "discovery!" That actually turned out to
be fortunate, as they ultimately released a documentary that was
nothing like what they described. You may have seen it, it was
eventually called The Aliens Have Landed, and was widely
regarded as one of the most blatant efforts to debunk
experiences that had come out in recent years.

If you have seen it I don't need to explain, but as one brief
example which illustrates that their intent was to 'polarize'
and 'disprove', after an experiencer mentioned reproductive
procedures, a scientist explained that it is impossible for
human beings to mate with another species. A fair statement to
make, if someone had been given an opportunity to note that
human beings have already spliced genes from animals into
plants, leaving the potential of breeding across species wide
open.

Again, I use this example not to start a specific argument about
this one point, but as an illustration of how the program would
follow experiencer stories with people who would essentially
debunk what they said, without ever having given the
experiencers or the researchers an opportunity to respond. And
why did they not have an opportunity to respond? Because part of
keeping secret the fact that they were raising debunking issues
meant they never asked experiencers to respond to such issues.
Their deception tainted the content. Condescending narration and
editing choices that subtly (or not too subtly) skewed the
viewers opinion also ran throughout the program.

There was no way on Earth that what they described to us had any
relationship at all to what they actually created. No
relationship at all. We were fortunate that they excised Dr.
Mack, but they exploited several people who had trusted our
opinion of the team. Some had good reason to take legal action
against them for failing to live up to their word to adequately
protect their identities.

We no longer believe any production company that is working with
Learning Channel/Discovery Channel, and we'd encourage everyone
in the field to decline any participation with that network.
Please note that this network uses different production houses.
But they are ultimately responsible. Given that the production
house that Mr. Velez refers to is a different one than the one
we dealt with (but is using similarly deceitful tactics) we'd
urge everyone to decline any invitation from any company working
for Learning Channel/Discovery Channel. Eventually, they will
have to make a policy of honesty, if they are to have our
participation.

That is our decision; we hope other researchers may feel the
same.


Will Bueche

Communications and New Media Dir.
PEER









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                            Re: New Jersey Lights

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:04:57 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:02:23 -0400
Subject: Re: New Jersey Lights


Hello all,

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/frame/direct.asp?SITE=abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da
ilyNews/ufo010717.html

was the only site (Worldnet Daily) that still carried _anything_
about the N.J. lights ABC has to be credited with a balanced
report. Though I am no fan of Sam Donaldson.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                  Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Velez

From: John <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:38:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:04:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Velez


 >From: Dan Geib <geibdan@qtm.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary
 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:36:53 GMT

 >>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:03:41 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary

 >>Notice anything missing from the version that was sent to me?

 >>No mention _at_all_ about "sleep paralysis" in the version going
 >>out to abductees. Hmmm... I wonder why!  ;)

 >>"Garbage in... garbage out" I always say. How good is the final
 >>product going to be? How good _can it be_ when right off the mark
 >>they seek to deceive by convenient (for them) omission?

Hello Dan, hi All,

You wrote:

 >And of course, we certainly wouldnt want those with actual sleep
 >disorders to get any help would we? And we certainly wouldnt
 >want some poor soul that suffers from sleep disorders but is
 >convinced he/she has been abducted to have any other legitamate
 >explanation now would we?

Wow! What an unabashedly _convoluted_ interpretation of my post.

 >Open Minds create open viewpoints. There are more than one view
 >to the world around us.

And more than one way to read a post I would imagine. <LOL>

Get a grip Dan. I neither said or implied anything of the kind -
and you know it.

John Velez









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                    Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:47:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:06:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:23:47 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:36:17 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:19:33 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Carter, Sheehan, & Menzel

 >><snip>

 >>John wrote:

 >>>I'm sorry man. I don't speak for anybody but me, but I'm here to
 >>>tell you that I won't do it. I am a strong supporter of the push
 >>>for disclosure, but I do not support Dr.Greer. (For all of the
 >>>above reasons.) I can't believe that you guys are willing to
 >>>"look the other way" in the name of expedience.

 >>Kind of reminds me of politics. For example when Clinton was
 >>cutting defense, cutting back bombers, bases and missiles the
 >>"conservatives" howled and yelled about how he was destroying
 >>our military, our defense blah blah blah.

 >>Now President Bush, through SecDef has proposed cutting back the
 >>b-1 bomber force by a third, retiring and removing all of our
 >>latest ICBM's, the peacekeepers, proposed closing 25 military
 >>bases...which the joint chiefs supported because they want to
 >>use the savings to upgrade and buy "much needed weapons systems"
 >>plus according to SecDef he is attempting to find "25-30 billion
 >>dollars in additional savings in the defense budget." Not to
 >>mention cutting the nuclear warheads down by 600 percent.

 >>These same conservatives who howled and yelled when Clinton
 >>proposed cuts now are silent. Its called "our guy is in
 >>power..."

 >Hello Robert:

 >No big disagreement on the main points, but how do you or anyone
 >cut anything back by 600 percent?

Hola Laroo, ho All,

Hey Larry, it's like when the mob guys threaten to kill you five
times before you hit the ground. I think it's Italian math!
<LOL>

Regards,

John Velez, 260% sure of my facts!  ;)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

              Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:47:26 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:10:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Mortellaro


 >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:36:17 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

 >>From UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Source: The Star-Ledger, New Jersey

 >>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/jersey/ledger/13d386c.html

 >>Late-night Carteret light
 >>show a mystery

 >>07/16/01

 >>BY DORE CARROLL
 >>STAR-LEDGER STAFF

 >>A drowsy mother in Carteret saw the flickering golden lights in
 >>the sky and ran for her camera. A hard-boiled Navy veteran
 >>traveling the New Jersey Turnpike spotted the slow-moving,
 >>bright-yellow V-formation and pulled his car to the shoulder to
 >>get a better look.

 >>Police officers on patrol at 12:40 a.m. yesterday couldn't
 >>believe their eyes.

 >>Within the hour, Carteret police dispatchers said they heard
 >>from at least 15 callers reporting strange orange flares blazing
 >>high above the Arthur Kill. The eerie glow had people at
 >>backyard barbecues mesmerized, with heads upturned and mouths
 >>agape. Almost 75 vehicles pulled over on the New Jersey Turnpike
 >>to watch the spectacle.

 >>But no one seems to know what caused the luminous vision.

 >>Police could not identify the source of the lights, and Newark
 >>International Airport authorities reported no unusual flight
 >>patterns. A meteorologist with the National Weather Service said
 >>nothing in the atmosphere would have caused the bright
 >>disturbance, and an airman at McGuire Air Force Base said none
 >>of their military planes were in the air at that hour.

 >>Whatever it was that lit up the sky above Carteret was by all
 >>accounts weird.

 >>"It wasn't fireworks, and it couldn't have been a hot-air
 >>balloon, not at night near the airfield," said Steven Vannoy,
 >>who pulled over on the turnpike with his girlfriend on their way
 >>home to Perth Amboy. "What we saw last night qualifies as a UFO.
 >>It was an unidentifiable flying object."

 >>A Carteret police sergeant on duty called the State Police and
 >>neighboring departments in Linden and Woodbridge to find out
 >>what was causing the strange glow, but he said none had received
 >>reports of the lights.

 >>Bob Wanton, a National Weather Service meteorologist in Mount
 >>Holly, had no explanation for the lights. "Weatherwise, there
 >>was nothing that would have caused it," he said.

 >>The aurora borealis, a spectacular show of light high in the
 >>northern hemisphere, is seldom visible in New Jersey, said
 >>Wanton. The lights normally appear in the winter, he said.

 >>"It's very unusual for the northern lights to come down this
 >>far, especially at this time of year," he said.

<snip>

 >They made a big deal out of this sighting on -all- the newscasts
 >in the tri-state area. (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut)
 >In a one and a half hour period I listened to five different
 >news reports. CBS ch.2, NBC ch.4, WNEW/Fox ch.5, UPN ch.9, and
 >the WB ch.11

 >The reports from WB 11 and UPN 9 were straight news reports
 >that included many independent witness reports and some great
 >videotape footage of the event. The other three stations
 >gave a report but they were accompanied by the mandatory
 >'giggles' and 'jokes' afterwards by the resident talking heads.

 >The video footage was impressive. Taken from various locations,
 >the video footage showed about 15 objects in various
 >'formations.' One clip showed a triangle formation. Another clip
 >showed a formation that resembled the Big Dipper. The 'dipper'
 >formation was reported by several witnesses, two of which
 >captured good clear video of the event. Another pair of
 >witnesses said the objects flew into a formation resembling
 >several stacked straight lines at one point during the display.

 >Another video clip showed a bunch of cars pulled off the road
 >(with the objects clearly visible on the sky beyond) so that the
 >occupants could take in the display. One of them obviously
 >recorded the tape I was viewing. A Carteret police officer
 >stated that about 70 cars had all pulled off the road to observe
 >the strange orange lights.

 >Many of the witnesses interviewed commented on what a striking
 >sight it was to watch the objects 'maneuver' into different
 >formations before they all just disappeared.

<snip>

Dear John and all -

It would have been terribly interesting to have listened to the
air traffic during the event.

John Velez is within eashot of any and all radio traffic from
JFK, LaGuardia and even (air to ground) Newark. Traffic in the
air during that hour should have seen something and asked their
various air traffic controllers and towers about what they may
have seen.

Here was one opportunity, even without special antennas, for
someone to have tuned into the net.

In a few days (I hope by the weekend) I will publish the most
commonly used frequencies for those interested. It will be sent
to those who participated rather than UpDates, unless there is a
serious demand for the info.

PS: Those of you who have a voice activated tape recorder could
have a field day with this stuff.

Write me at ConsultTCG@AOL.COM if you want on that list.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                      Re: Discovery Channel Documentary

From: John <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:20:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:15:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 18 Jul 2001 05:56:33 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary

 >>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:03:41 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary

 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:01:15 -0700
 >>>Subject: Discovery Channel Documentary
 >>>From: Jason Ciaccia <jciaccia@atlasmediacorp.com>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Hello All,

 >>Regarding the Discovery Channel's proposed 'documentary'.

 >>This is how the message posted to our List is worded for public
 >>consumption:

 >>>I am an Associate Producer on a documentary about Sleep
 >>>Paralysis for the Discovery Channel.

 >>>We are producing a quality documentary for The Discovery Channel
 >>>that will explore various nocturnal and other "paranormal"
 >>>attacks, including alien abduction.

 >>Here is how the "private" invitation I received to participate
 >>in the program was worded:

 >>>We are producing a quality documentary for The Discovery Channel
 >>>that will explore various nocturnal and other "paranormal" attacks,
 >>>including alien abduction.

 >>Notice anything missing from the version that was sent to me?

 >>No mention _at_all_ about "sleep paralysis" in the version going
 >>out to abductees. Hmmm... I wonder why! ;)

 >>"Garbage in... garbage out" I always say. How good is the final
 >>product going to be? How good _can it be_ when right off the mark
 >>they seek to deceive by convenient (for them) omission?

 >>Shades of NOVA!

<snip>

 >>Boycott this thing!

Bill Hamilton writes:

 >You bet, John. This is just another example of the slipshod way
 >the Discovery channels (inc TLC) handles the UFO subject. They
 >did an abmysmal job on the Phoenix Lights and some other UFO
 >specials.

Hiya Bill, I received a private note from PEER echoing those
very sentiments. Apparently these guys have something of a 'rep'
for producing this kind of tabloid programing. I 'think' we'll
be seeing a post to the UpDates List from PEER's webmaster Will
Bueche about it. Watch the incoming mail for it.

 >Isn't it funny that there are abductee encounters in waking
 >states?

Which is precisely why it bothers me seeing it applied
willy-nilly to "all" abduction experiences. They never seem to
differentiate between the two. (Waking and sleeping experiences)
I think that sleep paralysis is a legitimate "disorder" (if you
will) it's just that they always apply it "broad brush" to all
abduction accounts.

 >Many my wife had were when she was awake and aware of
 >what was going on in the environment. She is also a very good
 >observer. She is also not gullible. Wide awake and sees 3 aliens
 >in the room. Now, how in the world does one resort to the theory
 >of sleep paralysis?

It's just plain old, piss-poor, one size fits all pseudo-science.

 >I have been wide awake with
 >adrenalin flowing and experienced an encounter in 1993. My
 >evaluation: Not sleep paralysis! Simple logic.

Not for those who will accept anything _but_ what is being
reported.

 >The truth of the matter is, John, you and I know that many
 >hypotheses for the causative agent behind the abduction
 >phenomena have been proposed, but many of these fail to account
 >for all the reported facts. Perhaps it is what it seems to be.
 >What a novel idea?

Hey man, those are the lyrics to the Blues tune I've been singing
on this List for the last six years! <LOL>

 >Oh, and we do not have to say that the unknown entitites are
 >extraterrestrial or come from the Delta Quadrant either - just
 >that they are unknown entitites who can manifest themselves in
 >some strange ways involving apparent violations of known
 >physical principles or a means of overcoming physical
 >limitations.

We don't even have to do that! Some of us are out here reporting
the simple facts of what has been happening to us. We have no
further responsibility to the public beyond that. We can only
hope that one day people recognize the kind of character and raw
cohones it takes for us to stand up and report in public. Most
folks have _no concept_ of the kinds of abuses we have to
endure.

"He who laughs last... laughs best!"

 >One last thought. This is also not to negate genuine cases of
 >sleep paralysis where the individual experiences a presence, but
 >I think we need to delineate those factors that differentiate
 >phenomena.

I agree with you *600% ! <LOL>(*That was for Larry Hatch ;)

Hey Bill best of luck with your new venture! I'd like to
contribute an article at some point in the future if it's ok
with you. :)

Warmest regards to you and the Mrs.

John Velez








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:15:03 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:21:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Ledger


 >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:36:17 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

 >>From UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Source: The Star-Ledger, New Jersey

 >>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/jersey/ledger/13d386c.html

 >>Late-night Carteret light
 >>show a mystery

 >>07/16/01

 >>BY DORE CARROLL
 >>STAR-LEDGER STAFF

 >>A drowsy mother in Carteret saw the flickering golden lights in
 >>the sky and ran for her camera. A hard-boiled Navy veteran
 >>traveling the New Jersey Turnpike spotted the slow-moving,
 >>bright-yellow V-formation and pulled his car to the shoulder to
 >>get a better look.

<snip>

 >Oh Lawdy, puleeze. I hope it _was_ the aliens. I hope that the
 >'Bugs' themselves yank the cover off of this thing, and soon.
 >Waiting for our government to get off the dime and make the
 >reality of the alien presence known to all only exacerbates the
 >aging process. Waiting for ufologists to do it is just a surreal
 >joke. It's like being trapped in a really cheesy version of a
 >Fellini movie.


Hi John,

This event takes me back to the type of sightings of the early
50s. Something like the Montana and Utah films.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 18

               Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:56:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:25:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Cecchini



 >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:36:17 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

 >They made a big deal out of this sighting on -all- the news-
 >casts in the tri-state area. (New York, New Jersey, and
 >Connecticut) In a one and a half hour period I listened to
 >five different news reports. CBS ch.2, NBC ch.4, WNEW/Fox ch.5,
 >UPN ch.9, and the WB ch.11

It was shown on Fox/25 News up here in Boston as well.

 >The video footage was impressive.

<snip>

 >Oh Lawdy, puleeze. I hope it -was- the aliens. I hope that the
 >'Bugs' themselves yank the cover off of this thing, and soon.

Ok, I'll be 'brave' enough to go on record and admit that I was
thoroughly underwhelmed. Seriously.

I'm not debunking, demanding, demeaning or decreeing... but what
I saw looked like a video of a group lights of some sort that
were 'falling' due to gravity and moving horizontally due to a
slight wind. Mind you, I'm _not_ saying that that's what they
were, merely that that's what they looked like; i.e. there
didn't appear to be anything under 'intelligent control' or
what-have-you.

Give me the videos of the zipping and zig-zagging lights or
'silvery things' - _that's_ the good stuff!

This slow-moving, falling, flickering and then burning out light
stuff is pretty ho-hum, as far as I'm concerned, and I bet it
proves to be nothing. At any rate, I really hope that people
don't rush off trying to herald this incident as some kind of
_proof_ that ET is finally making itself known to us.

Take care.











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                    'An Enigma Shines Light On Carteret'

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:44:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:44:58 -0400
Subject: 'An Enigma Shines Light On Carteret'




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

Source: The Star-Ledger, New Jersey

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/jersey/ledger/13d9abb.html

An Enigma Shines Light On Carteret

07/18/01

BY ALICIA GREY
STAR-LEDGER STAFF

When it comes to those mysterious lights seen hovering
over Carteret last weekend, the truth is out there --
somewhere.

The problem is, no one can say for sure what that truth
might be.

Some think the lights were candles in dark balloons, or
optical illusions caused by swamp gas or chemical
releases from oil refineries near the New Jersey Turnpike.

Others say the only logical explanation is a UFO.

Carteret Police Chief John Pieczyski thinks that in the end,
all the excitement will be for naught.

"I think we're going to see that it was all a hoax. . . .
Someone set something up" such as a balloon, Pieczyski
said. "If someone did do it (as a prank), they won't keep it
a secret."

But that hasn't stopped the legion of reporters, talk show
hosts and UFO chasers who have descended upon the
gritty Middlesex County borough since early Sunday, when
dozens of people reported seeing yellowish-orange lights,
traveling in a V-formation across the sky and then slowly
fading out.

Even the National UFO Reporting Center in Seattle and the
National Institute for Discovery Science in Las Vegas are
hot on the case.

The reporting center has been "flooded" with calls, but
director Peter Davenport says it's too soon to determine
what people actually saw.

But the reports have been so intriguing that Davenport has
asked a Medford-based investigator for the Mutual UFO
Network of Littleton, Colo., to investigate.

"We don't know what it was, but it deserves our attention,"
Davenport said.

Davenport said the first call came into to the Seattle center
at 2 a.m. EST from a South Plainfield woman who reported
that she and her boyfriend stopped along the Turnpike to
get a closer look at the strange lights.

Research scientist Colm Kelleher, a deputy administrator
at the National Institute for Discovery Science, which uses
scientific methods to investigate such phenomena, said his
team is eager to track down eyewitnesses.

While he's not ruling anything out, Kelleher said his first
hunch is that people actually saw fire balloons, the most
common kind of UFO hoax. Such balloons -- made of
anything from a hot air balloon to a garbage bag -- are filled
with candles and then let go. They can rise up to 2,000
feet in the air.

Detective Lt. Daniel Tarrant of the Carteret police was
among the dozens who stared into the dark sky around
12:20 a.m. Sunday to catch a glimpse after his daughter --
who was out with friends -- called to tell him to take a look
outside.

Tarrant said he saw 16 yellowish-orange lights pass over
his house.

"As I watched them coming overhead, some were burning
out and breaking into pieces. Three were left burning," he
said.

Tarrant believes it was "some sort of debris."

Curious people in and around Carteret weren't the only
ones who saw something strange in the night sky.

Al and Wendy Draina of East Amwell were on the road in
Hunterdon County at 11:30 p.m. Saturday when they saw
something.

"We saw it very briefly," Al Draina said. "We realized it
was something unusual. At first we thought it was
fireworks. . . . I've never seen anything like it."

Bob Buenzly of Allentown, Pa., and his family said they
saw something similar in the sky around 11 p.m. Monday
while vacationing at Lavallette in Ocean County.

"I have no clue what it could be," said Buenzly's
16-year-old son, Shaun. "But it was definitely not stars."

Although a lot of aircraft fly over Carteret -- mostly to and
from Newark International Airport -- the Federal Aviation
Administration had no report of any "unusual activities" in
the area on Sunday or Monday, said spokesman Jim
Peters.

"There were planes in that area, but that doesn't mean the
aircraft were the cause of what people were seeing at that
time," he said.

The National Weather Service said nothing in the
atmosphere that night would have caused the bright
disturbance.

And the lights weren't from military planes either, said Staff
Sgt. Michael O'Connor, spokesman for McGuire Air Force
Base.

The attention this mystery is causing is nothing unusual for
Carteret, a small working-class town whose colorful
political characters have put it on the map many times.

Mayor James Failace pulled over along the Turnpike early
Sunday to watch what he described as 15 to 20 lights
flying overhead. They were "slowly coming down from the
sky. . . . I tell you it was very strange."

Failace's explanation?

"The only thing I can figure out is that they had heard about
me on other planets and they were coming to see what I
was doing."

Alicia Grey covers Carteret. She can be reached at
agrey@starledger.com or (732) 634-4222.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                           Non-Abductees Anonymous

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:47:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:02:05 -0400
Subject: Non-Abductees Anonymous


Hi all,

I forgot to mention that the other night on the SciFi channel's
"Exposure" series they featured a collection of alien-themed
films which they called "Aliens in your shorts".

Two of the four clips, "Herd" and "Non-Abductees Anonymous"
(NAA) were brilliantly done, and flat- out hilarious.

Regarding the "NAA" short, some might be inclined to think that
the clip is being "insensitive" to all the "real life abductees"
or something, but I thought it was a great parody. It had to do
with the apparently growing number of people who are feeling all
sorts of anxiety, worthlessness, and a growing lack of
self-esteem, etc, because of their apparent (to them)
undesirability by the aliens; i.e. they're people who want to be
abducted so that they can experience all the great things they
keep hearing about from other abductees.

Anyway, I thought it was hysterical...

I don't know if all 15 minutes of "Herd" is on-line, but I
_think_ (the much shorter) "NAA" is. (don't hold me to that.)

The links are at:

http://www.scifi.com/exposure/exposure.html

http://www.scifi.com/exposure/frameup/herd.html

http://www.scifi.com/exposure/frameup/non.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 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                    Orange/White/Blue Lights & Radiation

From: Jan Pheneger <jan0320@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:16:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:19:53 -0400
Subject: Orange/White/Blue Lights & Radiation


Dear List,

Rarely, perhaps once, have I, in the past, posted to this List.
I have observed UFO UpDates and learned for over a year and a
half. It is very informative!

The recent "lights" seen on the East Coast has brought forward
something that may, or may not be of a interest to
this List, but is highly interesting to me.

I have photographed unusual lights in Allen and Auglaize Countys
in Ohio. It is my understanding that all film negatives pick up
radiation.

Took me awhile, but I learned this.

Also, I must mention that what I have photographed, is different
to what the human eye sees after the negatives are developed, as
the negatives once developed show these lights in a different
aspect of the actual light.

Radiation trails, I have been told.

I've had professionals look at the negatives, as well as the
prints, from Sherrif Pilot who teaches Criminal Photography to
Law Enforcement Students, Dr. Gerald Newsome, Professor of
Astronomy at Ohio State University, The 30 + Photo Editor of the
Associated Press, Columbus, Ohio to Kodak in New York, who all
state the same logistics. What I have on film is Scientifically
Impossible to have.

Plain and out, "impossible".

This was during a flap from 1995 - 1997, in which there were
many witnesses to my taking these pictures, including Sherrif
Deputys.

Recently, I have videotaped this light. The Video is remarkable
as the light is moving horizontal, and as soon as it "blinks
out", the video camera catches it taking a 30-35 degree upward
movement with a speed so fascinating, that no one could, or
would withstand the G-forces.

This video is consistant with the camera pictures, of why the
still pictures show the various colors of light portraying the
object as I will say for a example....silly putty all over the
pictures..it's speed. It is the best I can explain the pictures,
except also for the spectrums of color. Blue, Green, orange,
white.

Forget camera shake.

I understand that the color white goes into the color of
"invisible".

Remarkably, Cameras cannot do Algebra either. These pictures
portray measurements, meaning that whatever the Camera negative
picked up, it still does not mean that a "structured object" was
not there. I'm telling you it was, even if invisible to the
human eye, and no one is going to tell me any different.

The negative picked it up. And as well, who sees radiation
anyway? This Video is consistent with the camera pictures, taken
with a Minolta Camera.

Camera was set at F-8 Shutter Speed 250.

Kodak 400, Kodak 800, and Kodak 1000 speed film.

Each set of negatives depicts the film speed I used.

I am told that this film depicts a object, or light moving, as I
have negatives where it was moving so fast, it actually jumps a
frame of the negative right into the next frame.

If the well respected Sheriff pilot who has analysed these
negatives and film, who teaches Criminal Photography are
correct, he estimated this object/light, doing over Mach II,
perhaps even faster.

I am a Ohio farm gal. My expertise and interest is in music
promotion, as my brother is a writer/publisher in Nashville, Tn.
I am also the fiancee of Bruce Maccabee.

I promoted UFO 2000 in Lima, Ohio with Bruce Maccabee, Stanton
Friedman, Budd Hopkins, Nancy Talbott, and John P. Timmerman.

A wonderful Symposium for Lima, Ohio with these outstanding
Guest Speakers. My purpose for this post is my own wonder of
anyone else out there taking pictures of abnormal "lights" that
will just blink on, move in abnormal patterns, blink off, and be
gone, at random... or so one would normally think it gone... but
is silent, and probe as in the course of action it portrays.

It is not gone, I am telling you it is not!

It evades our own "known aircraft " (when known, identified
aircraft comes close to it's air space,) it also seems to follow
water routes such as rivers, and I might note here that the
Paulding County Crop Circle was near the Auglaize River here in
Ohio as well.

The recent Sightings of lights on the East Coast observed by
many, is of interest to me.

Anyone on the List know of any pictures, videotapes of these
lights taken for cross reference to the above post I have made?


Jan Pheneger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                CIA Lawsuit Documents on Project 1947 Website

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:00:59 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:23:06 -0400
Subject: CIA Lawsuit Documents on Project 1947 Website


CIA Lawsuit Document on Project 1947 Website

Again, today John Stepkowski posted more updates to the Project
1947 Website.

See:

http://www.project1947.com/new.htm

There are further updates to Barry Greenwood's UFO article
collection. In less than a month Barry has added more new
entries to his list. This is the second update in just about as
many weeks. Barry is currently working on a similar listing for
ball lightning articles. It is already more than 21 pages long.
It will be a future addition to the Sign Historical Group
Website.

We have also added the Google Search Engine. Now you may search,
Project 1947, the Sign Historical Group and the web from Project
1947.

We also just posted three hard to obtain documents from the CIA
lawsuit. These are the Interrogatories, Civil Action and
Document Production. People might want to compare what the CIA
produced with lawsuit documents. They also might be interested
in comparing Gerald Haines' article with the questions submitted
to the CIA via the lawsuit. See if all the answers are there!

http://www.project1947.com/ciaufo/ciagsw.html

This is not the last you will see on Project 1947 concerning
UFOs and the CIA. Another article is currently 'in the works'.
Comments and references are always welcome.

Another important long document should be posted to the Sign
Historical Group webpage within the next week or so. There are
just a few final touches necessary. Again, this is another
document which is very difficult for researchers to obtain.


Thank you,

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 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:07:11 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:06:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Ledger


 >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:56:53 -0400
 >From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:36:17 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

<snip>

 >Give me the videos of the zipping and zig-zagging lights or
 >'silvery things' - _that's_ the good stuff!

 >This slow-moving, falling, flickering and then burning out light
 >stuff is pretty ho-hum, as far as I'm concerned, and I bet it
 >proves to be nothing. At any rate, I really hope that people
 >don't rush off trying to herald this incident as some kind of
 >_proof_ that ET is finally making itself known to us.


Hi Ron and John,

The objects' direction of flight and the wind direction would
clear up a few things. Anybody know either?

Don











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                 Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 02:48:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:11:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Velez



 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:47:26 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:36:17 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

 >>>From UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>Source: The Star-Ledger, New Jersey

 >>>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/jersey/ledger/13d386c.html

 >>>Late-night Carteret light
 >>>show a mystery

 >>>07/16/01

 >>>BY DORE CARROLL
 >>>STAR-LEDGER STAFF

<snip>

Mortellaro wrote:

 >Dear John and all -

 >It would have been terribly interesting to have listened to the
 >air traffic during the event.

 >John Velez is within eashot of any and all radio traffic from
 >JFK, LaGuardia and even (air to ground) Newark. Traffic in the
 >air during that hour should have seen something and asked their
 >various air traffic controllers and towers about what they may
 >have seen.

 >Here was one opportunity, even without special antennas, for
 >someone to have tuned into the net.

 >In a few days (I hope by the weekend) I will publish the most
 >commonly used frequencies for those interested. It will be sent
 >to those who participated rather than UpDates, unless there is a
 >serious demand for the info.

 >PS: Those of you who have a voice activated tape recorder could
 >have a field day with this stuff.

 >Write me at ConsultTCG@AOL.COM if you want on that list.


1. I'm not 'Jean Dixon' or the 'Psychic Hotline'.

You mention me by name here as if we could have gotten more
information had I been listening. I had no idea that people in
New Jersey were having sightings at 12:30 AM that night. Did
you? Why weren't _you_ listening? You're the radio ham!

2. In the last few weeks _two_ of my uncles passed away, and my
mother suffered a heart attack. Listening to "airport chatter"
has been the farthest thing from my mind.

3. I told you (publicly) that I wasn't going to respond to
anymore of your posts.

4. If and when I decide to go out and buy a radio, and I happen
to pick up something interesting, I'll post it to the List
without having to be prodded.

5. I don't talk about you. Why is it so hard for you to reciprocate?
I haven't mentioned you by name in _any_ of my posts and I'd _really_
appreciate it if you would return the courtesy. I consider it a
disrespect that you use my name in public posts knowing that.

I do not wish to conduct any communications with you.

No need to respond. Capiche? Move on.


John Velez

That's my name. Don't wear it out.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                 Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:14:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:16:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:15:03 -0300
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

 >>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:36:17 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

 >>>From UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>Source: The Star-Ledger, New Jersey

 >>>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/jersey/ledger/13d386c.html

 >>>Late-night Carteret light
 >>>show a mystery

 >>>07/16/01

 >>>BY DORE CARROLL
 >>>STAR-LEDGER STAFF

 >>>A drowsy mother in Carteret saw the flickering golden lights in
 >>>the sky and ran for her camera. A hard-boiled Navy veteran
 >>>traveling the New Jersey Turnpike spotted the slow-moving,
 >>>bright-yellow V-formation and pulled his car to the shoulder to
 >>>get a better look.

 ><snip>

 >>Oh Lawdy, puleeze. I hope it _was_ the aliens. I hope that the
 >>'Bugs' themselves yank the cover off of this thing, and soon.
 >>Waiting for our government to get off the dime and make the
 >>reality of the alien presence known to all only exacerbates the
 >>aging process. Waiting for ufologists to do it is just a surreal
 >>joke. It's like being trapped in a really cheesy version of a
 >>Fellini movie.


 >Hi John,

 >This event takes me back to the type of sightings of the early
 >50s. Something like the Montana and Utah films.

 >Don Ledger

Hiya Dandy Don,

If you mean that old footage of UFO 'clusters', yes, I agree.
The Carteret videos also kind of reminded me of the footage of
the formation of objects that flew over the Nations Capitol way
back in 1952.

I watched the Carteret video clips carefully and I didn't notice
any of the lights appearing to lose altitude as has been
suggested. That contradicts all of the eyewitness testimony
which repeatedly states that the objects were flying
_laterally_, in formation, with lights going out as "It" (if it
was a single object) moved along.

The orthodox priest in George Filer's recent sightings report is
convinced that the lights were all attached to one giant object
because they held such a _tight_ formation as they moved east.
(Not _down_ as one List member has declared.)

GT McCoy posted an excellent URL that anyone interested in the
sighting should visit. Especially before advancing any premature
'flare' theories.

Here's the URL (again) that GT posted earlier:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/frame/direct.asp?SITE=abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da
ilyNews/ufo010717.html

Listen to the eyewitness testimony.


Warm regards,

John Velez








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:50:06 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:22:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:32:09 -0300

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:44:09 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:25:15 -0300

 >>>>From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:17:47 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>>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

 >>>>Stan wrote:

 >>>>>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 [Anderson] passed a
 >>>>>polygraph examination.

 >>Tom Carey wrote:

 >>>>To Stan and List:

 >>>>I cannot believe that you are running Gerald Anderson up the
 >>>>flagpole again. Some of us, fortunately, still remember. If you
 >>>>recall, we exposed him as a hoaxer almost a decade ago. As a
 >>>>result, you and Don Berliner were forced to issue a mea culpa
 >>>>concerning the veracity of Anderson. It saddens me to see you
 >>>>trying on this old shoe again. Must we go through the entire
 >>>>litany of Anderson's fabrications once again?

 >>To which Stan replied:

 >>>Maybe we should, and replace myths with facts.

 >>Stan, Tom, List, all -

 >>Yes, let's replace myths with facts. This could be fun.

 >>>Yes he changed a
 >>>phone bill and has admitted it. He was indeed justifiably angry
 >>>at the demonizing of him that was being done.That doesn't
 >>>justify the changing. As I recall you did an article demonizing
 >>>him in IUR noting he was a poor high school student but not
 >>>noting his GED and many subsequent college courses.

 >>Interesting, maybe, but wholly irrelevant in this discussion.
 >>Yes, his anger would have been justified, had we not already
 >>caught him a bunch of other lies and suggested that, as a
 >>witness, he wasn't worth much. Of course, much of this was
 >>private communication, not directed toward Anderson so he
 >>wouldn't have known about the doubts had not someone been
 >>telling him these things. Telling him that I was a former
 >>intelligence officer, and telling him not to talk to me. Telling
 >>him that I wrote romances... which is, of course, a false claim
 >>(Stan's term).

 >I suspect I told him you wrote fiction. Perhaps you are
 >projecting on to me your telling him not to talk to me? Yes I
 >did tell him about some of your many attacks on him. Were you
 >not a former intelligence officer?

Listen to your first interview with Anderson and you'll hear
yourself tell him that I write romances. Yes, and the key word
is former here. But, go back to your tape and listen to yourself
use the terminology in a pejorative manner, to play on the
paranoia of Anderson as a way to ensure that he won't speak to
me again.

 >>>You and
 >>>others claimed he was in Buskirk's class. No support for that
 >>>from Larry Henning, with whom I spoke yet again yesterday . Nor
 >>>from other students with whom I spoke who were in the class and
 >>>didn't recognize Gerald from his yearbook picture.

 >You recently brought up Henning.

Which doesn't mean that he's not irrelevant.

 >>Henning and the Yearbook photograph nonsense are Red Herrings.
 >>Dr. Buskirk said that Anderson was in the class, verifying that
 >>when he called the Albuquerque High School and asked his friends
 >>there to review that record. When I called, I was told by one of
 >>the assistant principals that Anderson had taken the
 >>anthropology course taught by Buskirk. We know this because
 >>there was but a single class in anthropology and Buskirk taught
 >>it. So, Henning, who when I asked about a student named
 >>Anderson, said, "Jerry Anderson?" is irrelevant.

 >Funny the first claim was that Buskirk had no memory about GA
 >and hoped he passed him.

Yes, and then he called his colleagues at the Albuquerque High
School who reviewed the record and said that Anderson had been
in the class. And then I called the high school and was told the
very same thing. Finally, I got a letter from Anderson
threatening to sue me, and anyone else who violated his privacy
by releasing his transcripts and other information. But the
point is, that the school did verify Anderson in the class.

 >>Besides, Anderson was at the Albuquerque High School where
 >>Buskirk taught. Yes, it was spread through three buildings, but
 >>isn't that a huge coincidence... that Anderson and Buskirk would
 >>see a crashed flying saucer in 1947 and ten years later be at
 >>the same high school. Isn't it odd that Stan insists on talking
 >>about the students in the class rather than the teacher of it
 >>and the administrators of the school who have access to the
 >>records?

 >You have still not provided any evidence he was in the class.
 >You forgot to mention that Gerald was only in the high school
 >for 1 year not a few years. So how many
 >archeologists/anthropologists taugh high school courses in all
 >of NM then?

How many other archaeologists and anthropologists taught high
school classes in New Mexico is irrelevant. What is important
here is that Anderson was at the Albuquerque High School and Dr.
Buskirk was at the Albuquerque High School, and Anderson
identified him as the archaeologist on the Plains in 1947, an
allegation that Buskirk denies. So the question was, where did
Anderson meet him in not on the Plains and the answer is,
"Albuquerque High School."

 >>>People have claimed he wasn't in the Seals, apparently because
 >>>some guy told Kevin he didn't recall him.. Real evidence that.
 >>>It is claimed he faked the uncle's diary. Basis?? I had tests
 >>>done. The ink predated Roswell noise.

 >>Some guy? He was the head of the SEALs museum in Miami and a
 >>former member of the Navy SEALs himself. According to him, in
 >>the 1960s, there weren't many SEALs. They all knew one another.
 >>They don't know Anderson. Do you have any proof that he was a
 >>SEAL? Have you attempted to retrieve his record from the Records
 >>Center? If not, why not? Oh, yes, research by proclamation and
 >>the false claim (Stan's term) that Anderson was a SEAL.

 >What will you say if proof is provided? I just checked on
 >somebody's claim that an individual had gone to Stanford. I got
 >an email from the registrar's office saying he was not. That is
 >evidence. Where is yours?

I will immediately apologize to Anderson for disparaging his
military career... But, this has to be a record that comes from
St. Louis and sent directly to you. I checked as far as I could
and was told by all those that Anderson had not been a SEAL.
Please, prove me wrong.

 >>And no, the ink didn't predate the Roswell noise. It was a
 >>formula developed in 1974 and therefore proved that Anderson's
 >>diary couldn't have been written in 1947 as he had falsely
 >>(Stan's term) claimed.

 >By Roswell noise I was speaking of the first book in 1980,
 >Berlitz and Moore.

 >>It didn't prove that the diary couldn't
 >>have been written, oh, after January 1990 when Anderson saw the
 >>"Unsolved Mysteries" segment. Research by proclamation.

 >>Let's not forget that Anderson changed the description of the
 >>alien creatures, changed the number of dead, dying and living,
 >>changed moss agate to moss agate and banded agate when he
 >>learned that moss agate wasn't found around the Plains, claimed
 >>he could read at five and then that he couldn't, changed the
 >>location of the crash site and the shape of the craft he saw,
 >>and on and on. All these are good reasons to believe that
 >>Anderson's story is not grounded in reality.

 >All intereting scenarios. Pretty soon you will be claiming that
 >you met with Anderson

Interesting debating tactic here. Accuse me of something that
might happen in the future. No, I haven't met Anderson. I spoke
to him on the telephone before you did. And I didn't tell him
not to talk to you.....

But, let's see here. Anderson said to me, "...there were four
occupants. Three were on the ground underneath this thing
and one was sitting up next to it... this creature was alive."

On March 24, 1991, Anderson said, "...there were four
occupants, two of them had been deceased at the site, one
of them, as you [host of the radio show] pointed out,
was indeed critically injured. The other creature survived
for a period of one year according to that account..."

Anderson told me that the eyes were "bluish. Not blue like blue
in human eyes, but blue like... sort of a milky blue.

He said, on a national radio show, "Their eyes were enormous.
That was the most startling thing about them. They were very
black and very large, almost oval shaped."

Anderson told me that crash was to the northwest of Socorro. He
said, "If you're standing there facing the west, looking at the
array [Very Large Array Radio telescope] move approx. ten...
five to ten degrees to the right [north] and you'll be looking
over a ridge line..." In other words, on the north side of
Highway 60. Now, the site is far south of Highway 60, near Horse
Springs. If such was the case, why even bring in the Very Large
Array? And why not mention Horse Springs in the very beginning,
rather than being vague about where the crash took place?

He told the radio interviewer, "You could see through the
gash... what you could see in there appeared to be a double
bulkhead and on this bulkhead there seemed to be some kind of
components set in arrays and there seemed to be some symbols of
some kind... pink scribbling..."

He told me, however, "The side was torn out and there were lots
of cables and junk like that."

I could go on with Anderson talking about the archaeologists
from the University of Pennsylvania, the cliff dwellings, and
the other things that suggest he was inventing his story, but I
think this is enough to show these interesting scenarios are
accurate.

 >><snip>

 >>>I take it you have some evidence that her excursion was the only
 >>>one made by Victor? Come off it Tom. When I mention names they
 >>>get totally ignored or demonized. How about Johnny Foard?

 >>Yes, Stan, how about Johnny Foard? I was the first to talk with
 >>him and the one who found him. He told me that he remembered
 >>talk of a crash on the Plains, but couldn't remember when he had
 >>first heard it. He thought it could have been after the
 >>publication of The Roswell Incident, which makes the story of
 >>little real value, especially when he is unable to supply much
 >>in the way of detail.

 >>>How
 >>>about Colonel Leed? How about Harold Baca? Vern and Jean
 >>>Maltais?

 >>Yes, all very nice people, but all who are traced back to Barney
 >>Barnett.

 >Is there any reason to say Barney was a liar? Leed heard Moore
 >and I on a radio program. I called him later. He came up with
 >the name Barnett./.. not me. A solid citizen indeed.. as was
 >Barney.

Another red herring. The point is that these people all trace
back to Barney Barnett. No one mentioned lying at this point.

 >>Robert Drake?

 >>Yes, Robert Drake who allegedly heard the story from an
 >>unidentified cowboy in 1947, but there is no verification of
 >>this and his story. He surfaced after the publication of The
 >>Roswell Incident.

 >I searched and eventually found him because his name was on a
 >published paper.

Which doesn't change the fact that his story came from an
anonymous cowboy, so it is second hand, at best. He didn't see
anything, and his story, of talking about the crash while
driving back to Albuquerque is not borne out by the other three
in the car.

 >>>How about JG? I presume they don't count
 >>>because they say what you don't want to hear. Tough luck.

 >JG says he went out there after his father told him the story.

But we know nothing about JG or where his father might have
heard the story, or more importantly, when.

 >>They don't count here because they can't be used to corroborate
 >>the Plains of San Agustin story because they basically can be
 >>traced back to the same source. When it is all boiled down, you
 >>have Barney Barnett.

 >>>>Tom Carey

 >>>I am glad to hear you were out in the Plains. I am sorry to hear
 >>>you present such a loaded picture of what Victor and others have
 >>>done. Of course there is a lot of noise to go with the signal.
 >>>Selective choice of data and demonization are hardly scientific
 >>>tools.

 >>Stan, you forgot research by proclamation there. What we have
 >>with Anderson is a man who was caught lying about his interview
 >>with me, lied about his telephone bill and forged a document to
 >>prove it. Lied about his anthropology class... Let's get a
 >>letter from the school, sent directly to you, telling us what
 >>class Anderson took. That way you both can prove that I'm wrong,
 >>that I mislead Tom and the others into believing Anderson took
 >>the anthropology, and you can go a long way to rehabilitating
 >>the Anderson story. Of course, I will not hold my breath.

 >Might happen.

But probably won't. Remember, Anderson has a history of forging
documents, so we need to get this directly from the high school.
We know of three that he forged.

 >>And write to the Records Center and get Anderson's service
 >>record. Let's see if he was a Navy SEAL. He doesn't seem to
 >>understand the terminology and has presented no documents to
 >>verify this, so let's see what the record has to say. Prove me
 >>wrong on this point as well.

 >Might happen.

But won't because Anderson wasn't a SEAL. When the record proves
me right on this point, what are you planning to do?

 >>And, let's stop throwing in Larry Henning. He is irrelevant
 >>because the real information came from Anderson's high school
 >>teacher and the school itself. No one but you really cares about
 >>Henning and what he thinks he remembers.

 >>And finally, let's not forget the other lies that Anderson has
 >>told over the years.

 >>Sorry to butt in here, Tom, but Stan wanted to replace some of
 >>the myths with facts and I thought that I could help.


 >I can understand why you maje a joke instead of responding to my
 >response to your response about the false claims.

If you refer to the other post, I will do so. If not, then I don't
know what you're talking about here. I did notice that you really
haven't answered the questions, but dodged them neatly by attempting
to put me on the defensive.....


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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                           Palm Beach Falling Star

From: Scott Caput <scaput@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:28:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:14:18 -0400
Subject: Palm Beach Falling Star


Hello,

I saw this article this morning and thought I would
share it with the List.


Scott Caput

-----

Woman Says She Saw Star Fall To Earth

Geologist Unsure Of Retrieved Rocks

PALM BEACH, Fla., 12:05 a.m. EDT July 19, 2001 -- First there
was a bright light, then a splash and what happened next had a
lot of local people talking.

Deanna Ross, from Palm Beach, said that what she witnessed in
the sky Tuesday night was nothing short of a meteor falling to
earth.

"It seemed to stop and exploded into gazillions of pieces and
fell down to the ocean," Ross said. "So my first thought was to
come first thing in the morning and see if I could find some
debris in the ocean."

She returned from the ocean with three rocks.

"It still feels very alive and soft," Ross explained. "I walk
the ocean every day and evening so I was instantly aware it had
to be parts of what I saw. It just had to be."

To find out for sure whether the stones Ross brought back were,
in fact, remnants from a fireball, Eyewitness News 25 took them
to a geologist at the South Florida science museum.

It didn't take the geologist, Dr. Stan "Rocks," long to come to
this conclusion that the stones were probably made of volcanic
material -- perhaps from a volcano on the ocean floor.

Deanna Ross, however, is not discouraged.

"It was just magical. It was so enchanting. I felt so
exhilarated when I was watching this whole thing take place
before my eyes," Ross remembered.

Copyright 2001 by TheWPBFchannel.com. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:49:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:18:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:12:56 -0300

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:28:34 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:48:29 -0300

 >>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:55:44 -0500

 >>>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>>>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:37:30 -0300

 >>Good Morning all -

<snip>

 >>This to keep the MJ-12 papers alive. No good evidence for the
 >>escape capsule or crew compartment, but a necessity if the MJ-12
 >>papers are to be believed. And, the incorporation of the Glenn
 >>Dennis story here, even with parts of that story having eroded
 >>completely.

 >There is a growing body of evidence about bodies a la MJ-12.
 >Tune in soon. Despite your claims about Glenn, I did _not_ send
 >Gerald _anything_ about what Glenn told me prior to talking to
 >Gerald. I sent him background material, responses to my lectures
 >etc. He told me about a red haired officer and a black
 >seargeant... completely independent of Glenn having told me the
 >same thing a couple of weeks earlier.

I don't believe that it says anything of the kind here. I was
suggesting that all these elements, as we now understand them,
have been incorporated into the various stories coming from the
witnesses. I have always suggested that sending a package of
materials to a witness before that witness has been interviewed
might not be the best investigative technique.

But, looking at this, I can understand why you misunderstood
what I was attempting to say. It's merely that as time has passed,
these stories, from Dennis, from Anderson have evolved and that
some elements that were once exclusive to one has now appeared
in the other.

 >I repeat: I had sent him _nothing_ about a red haired officer
and >black seargeant _before_he_told_me_ about them. No matter
how >much _you_ would like to believe this scenario. It _is_
fiction.

And I repeat, I didn't say that you had. Your inventive
interpretations of my work is always somewhat amusing.

 >This typifies the problem. I have always admired your ability to
 >create fictional scenarios in your head and then on paper.
 >Undoubtedly this is a requirement for having published more than
 >6 dozen books of fiction. What I object to is your converting
 >what might have been to what must have been.... Honestly
 >believing that is what happened rather than that is what went on
 >in your head.

I must be the only person in all of Ufology whose day job
disqualifies me from UFO research. Backgrounds don't seem to
matter. You can lie about your job, your education and your
involvement in UFO research, the importance of your military job
or your rank, and all is forgiven... but write a science fiction
book and you are right out. Of course, about half of the members
of Science Fiction Writers of America are Ph.D.s, and active
scientists, and I have never seen a research paper rejected
because the author also wrote science fiction. In Ufology, that
is all that seems to matter. Watch out... Randle writes science
fiction.

 >You will recall the scene of Frank Kaufmann supposedly using a
 >mirror to watch a radar screen from the rest room over at White
 >Sands?

 >Total fiction.

Well, not total fiction, as you know. Frank told me about using
the mirror and the flashlight, and I envisioned the scene from
Real Genius in which they bounce the laser beam down the
hallway. I have told you before that this was a mistake I made
and one that I have attempted to correct. But, there was a
mirror and a flashlight, I just added a couple of additional
mirrors because I misunderstood what Frank was saying. But there
was no suggestion that they were watching the radar screen from
the latrine... only a suggestion they could see the mirror on
which the flashlight would be shown if anything changed in the
radar room.

 >You will recall the claim that Moore and I didn't undersand that
 >the MJ-12 documents were by a military man for a military man. I
 >had earlier written exactly that.

Ah, we change the complaint. What you wrote, in your 1995 MUFON
paper was, "William Moore and I [Stan] hadn't noticed that the
MJ-12 Briefing was by a military man for a military man." And I
responded, "Actually, what I said was that they overlook the
fact and don't understand the significance of it..."

But, the real problem is that you still don't understand some of
the subtleties of the military rank structures and the protocols
in affect. You simply don't understand military customs and
courtesies, and how important all these things are to those who
achieve flag rank.

 >You will recall claiming that 3 anthropologist were all in the
 >Plains in early July 1947 and all said that nothing happened
 >there? I spoke to them again. What each had said was he wasn't
 >in the Plains then and had heard nothing about a crash... very
 >different.

My response to your 1995 MUFON paper, where you made this same
allegation, was, "In my search for the archaeologists, I found a
number of them who were on the PSA [Plains of San Agustin].
Herbert Dick arrived in the middle of July [1947], but said that
he heard nothing from anyone who lived there that any event had
taken place. If we believe the Gerald Anderson [actually his
uncle's] diary, the recovery operation was still going on as
late as July 22. If true, then Dick was on the PSA in time to
see some of the operation."

 >You will recall asking me for other documents in which
 >Hillenkoetter had signed his name Admiral? There is no RHH
 >signature in the MJ-12 documents.

And I long ago asked you to produce any document created by
Hillenkoetter on which he got his own rank wrong. You said
he created the Eisenhower Briefing, so, find another document
where his rank is wrong like it is on that document. Find any
document that he created where his rank is wrong.

 >You will recall that you claimed in a History of UFO Crashes
 >that you had shown in your UFO Encyclopedia article that none of
 >the crash saucer stories including Roswell held any water? Your
 >response after reading your words for the 4th time, which do
 >indeed make the claim, was that is not what was in your head at
 >the time. I stressed I am not a psychic.

 >There is nothing about Roswell in the Encyclopedia. I don't
 >doubt that you were sceptical about such stories when you began
 >work with Don S. You have created a whole bunch of claims that
 >are plausible, but based on your imagination, not on the facts.

Your interpretation of that is not my interpretation of that.
Your original point, in your MUFON paper was, "The 1980
Encyclopedia of UFOs discussed Roswell." That is not accurate.
And, I don't accept your interpretation of what I meant as
accurate because, as you said, "I am not a psychic."

 >Please note I am _not_ saying you are lying. I have come to
 >believe that you actually believe the mental scenarios. The
 >evidence doesn't support them.

<snip>

 >>This to keep the Gerald Anderson tale alive, though the Barnett
 >>end of it mentions nothing about one being alive. This also
 >>overlooks the fact that Anderson said, at first, one was injured
 >>but alive and later said one was injured but dying and another
 >>was unhurt. And, it overlooks the fact that Anderson, contrary
 >>to what Stan wants to believe, was caught in many lies and
 >>forged a number of documents including his telephone bill, his
 >>high school transcript, the letter from ValleyJean, and his
 >>uncle's diary.

 >Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence for absence. I agree
 >Anderson changed a phone bill.He did not change his story about
 >live vs injured etc. The rest are in your imagination..
 >plausible but not supported by evidence other than your wishful
 >thinking.

In science, absence of evidence can mean evidence for absence.
Anderson did change his story... as just two examples, Anderson
said to me, "...there were four occupants. Three were on the ground
underneath this thing and one was sitting up next to it... this
creature was alive."

On March 24, 1991, Anderson said, "...there were four occupants,
two of them had been deceased at the site, one of them, as you
[host of the radio show] pointed out, was indeed critically
injured. The other creature survived for a period of one year
according to that account..."

Anderson told me that the eyes were "bluish. Not blue like blue
in human eyes, but blue-like... sort of a milky blue."

He said, on a national radi0 show, "Their eyes were enormous.
That was the most startling thing about them. They were very
black and very large, almost oval shaped."

 >>>I think thumbs down on the Corn ranch
 >>>site especially since Frank Kaufmann admitted to me and other
 >>>witnesses that his account was not true.

 >>Yes, now that the man is dead we can start these sorts of
 >>rumors. You have, of course, a tape recording of Kaufmann
 >>admitting to you that his account was not true. You have a
 >>letter, signed by him, admitting to you that his account was not
 >>true. Isn't it interesting that now he is dead, we begin to hear
 >>that he admitted, to you that his account was not true. Who else
 >>did he tell, Max Littell? Don Schmitt? Will there ever be any
 >>evidence of this, or will it be another example of the creation
 >>of testimony, not unlike the insertion of the word "black" into
 >>the report by Bill Brazel in an attempt to add a level of
 >>corroboration to the Anderson story?

 >I was at Frank's home with several others. He wanted me there.
I >asked if Blanchard had gone to the site per his story to you,
 >me, and Don. He said "NO." I asked if Marcel had gone to the
site with him as he had claimed. Again No. I wrote this up in my
 >notes on the meeting sent to the others as well. He was
spinning >tales which you had bought. I have come around to the
notion >that he did have a military connection for years after
1945

What you said, originally was, "I think thumbs down on the Corn
ranch site especially since Frank Kaufmann admitted to me and
other witnesses that his account was not true." And, I might
point out here that even if this new version of your story is
true, it doesn't quite match what you had said earlier about
Kaufmann admitting his story to be false.

And, he didn't tell me that he had accompanied Blanchard to the
site... You have, of course, copies of the interviews in which
he made this allegation. Or that he went out there with Marcel.
What he always said to me was that Marcel would have been
involved in all of this because you didn't leave your
intelligence officer out of it, which makes sense.

But to suggest from this that all of Kaufmann's tales are false
is a real stretch. It is interesting that you acknowledge a
military connection after 1945. I mean, the documentation does
have him working at the base as a civilian until late 1947.

 >Berliner says, in response to my question about the galleys for
 >Crash at Corona, Brazel used the N word for the seargeant. I
 >disagree about many things with Don B. but I have seen no signs
 >he is a liar. He writes Non-fiction.

You forget, I was at the meeting between Brazel and Don
Berliner, and I didn't hear Brazel use any language that would
suggest the sergeant was black, gray or dayglo. I also called
Brazel on Dec. 5, 1992 and asked him about this, specifically.
He told me that all members of the contingent who came to see
him were white. He would not have said that one was black (and
yes, I do have this conversation on tape). So, the insertion, of
the word black, into an interview that Don Schmitt and I
conducted, and recorded, and supplied to you (which you used in
your book with neither credit nor attribution) created a false
claim. Brazel didn't say it. Period.

And no one suggested that Don Berliner is a liar.

 >>>Ragsdale at best in my
 >>>gray basket over on the Pine Lodge Road.

 >>For heaven's sake why? Or, better yet, which version of his
 >>story is in your gray basket? The one where he stands off, never
 >>gets close to the bodies, and runs as soon as the military shows
 >>up, or the version where he sees everything and is pulling gold
 >>helmets off the fifteen dead aliens? The one where he is up on
 >>the Corn ranch or the one where he is at Boy Scout Mountain? The
 >>one in which he doesn't see much of the ship or the one in which
 >>it looks as if it collided with another ship and on the inside
 >>is a jewel encrusted throne? The version where he has debris and
 >>takes it home only to have it stolen, along with his
 >>Stradivarius, or the one in which he buries the golden helmets
 >>of the alien creatures? Just which version is in the gray
 >>basket?

 >I had much trouble believing he had taken a married woman out to
 >the Corn ranch site for a merry weekend. The Pine Lodge story
 >makes far more sense. He told me none of the throne stuff
 >(another fictional narrative??)

All those out there, at Pine Lodge, say that it didn't
happen. And, yes, Trudy Truelove, contrary to what Ragsdale
said, is alive in Ohio.

Yes, I'm sure that it is another fictional narrative - but this
one from "The Jim Ragsdale Story" as published by the
International UFO Museum and Research Center. On page three,
which is supposed to be Ragsdale's own words, it says, "I looked
inside the hole, and inside, there was a chair that looked like
a throne. It looked like it was made of rubies and diamonds."

In that same publication is your endorsement of the new Ragsdale
story. You supposedly said (or wrote), "In July 1995, I watched
a tape of his comments while viewing a video of the site. I
could not imagine any reason for his lying knowing full well
that he was dying. Obviously I would like backup testimony, but
the woman is dead. He was believable."

But, given the jewel encrusted throne, among other major
problems... why is this still in your gray basket?

 >>Sorry to butt in here, Dennis, but I really would like to know
 >>the answers to these questions... and why he was so sure, when
 >>the Ragsdale report first surfaced, that it was untrue and why
 >>it is now in his gray basket.

 >Ragsdale was adamant about the site NOT being the Corn ranch
 >site much as you would like to believe it to support Frank K's
 >original story.....

Yes, after he had identified the site on a map and using
photographs of the Corn Ranch. Yes, he was adamant, but that
doesn't change what he said originally, which is in conflict
with what he said later, which suggests that his stories cannot
be trusted. So, why is this still in the gray basket?

And why the attack on me? I question the things that Anderson
said, that Glenn Dennis said and that Jim Ragsdale said. Isn't
that the real point?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

              Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:27:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:21:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Mortellaro


 >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 02:48:43 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:47:26 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:36:17 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

 >>>>From UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>>Source: The Star-Ledger, New Jersey

 >>>>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/jersey/ledger/13d386c.html

 >>>>Late-night Carteret light
 >>>>show a mystery

 >>>>07/16/01

 >>>>BY DORE CARROLL
 >>>>STAR-LEDGER STAFF

 ><snip>

 >Mortellaro wrote:

 >>Dear John and all -

 >>It would have been terribly interesting to have listened to the
 >>air traffic during the event.

 >>John Velez is within eashot of any and all radio traffic from
 >>JFK, LaGuardia and even (air to ground) Newark. Traffic in the
 >>air during that hour should have seen something and asked their
 >>various air traffic controllers and towers about what they may
 >>have seen.

 >>Here was one opportunity, even without special antennas, for
 >>someone to have tuned into the net.

 >>In a few days (I hope by the weekend) I will publish the most
 >>commonly used frequencies for those interested. It will be sent
 >>to those who participated rather than UpDates, unless there is a
 >>serious demand for the info.

 >>PS: Those of you who have a voice activated tape recorder could
 >>have a field day with this stuff.

 >>Write me at ConsultTCG@AOL.COM if you want on that list.

 >1. I'm not 'Jean Dixon' or the 'Psychic Hotline'.

 >You mention me by name here as if we could have gotten more
 >information had I been listening. I had no idea that people in
 >New Jersey were having sightings at 12:30 AM that night. Did
 >you? Why weren't _you_ listening? You're the radio ham!

 >2. In the last few weeks _two_ of my uncles passed away, and my
 >mother suffered a heart attack. Listening to "airport chatter"
 >has been the farthest thing from my mind.

 >3. I told you (publicly) that I wasn't going to respond to
 >anymore of your posts.

 >4. If and when I decide to go out and buy a radio, and I happen
 >to pick up something interesting, I'll post it to the List
 >without having to be prodded.

 >5. I don't talk about you. Why is it so hard for you to reciprocate?
 >I haven't mentioned you by name in _any_ of my posts and I'd _really_
 >appreciate it if you would return the courtesy. I consider it a
 >disrespect that you use my name in public posts knowing that.

 >I do not wish to conduct any communications with you.

 >No need to respond. Capiche? Move on.


 >John Velez

 >That's my name. Don't wear it out.


Dear List and Errol,

There is a positive turn to this somewhat negative post.

This New Jersey Lights phemon - As with the sighting of a UFO,
you just _never_ know when something like this will occur. Which
is why the latest ConsultTCG@AOL.COM scanner project includes
information on how to tape whilst you are away or at virtually
any time using a cheap and dirty tape recorder with a voice
actuated mike. The technique is perfectly harmless and tapes are
available which will go for four or more hours straight line
time. Since voice actuation duty cycle will never approach this
limit even during peak traffic hours, you have plenty of tape
for a good 24 hours, even more.

As for your response, John and all, please note my words:

 >>Here was one opportunity, even without special antennas, for
 >>someone to have tuned into the net.

Living near the airport is not an indictment, blaming you
personally for not being there at two in the AM during funerals.
God, man. Chill.

All who asked to be on my scanner project list, and only those
who asked, were placed on it. I presume this is a request to be
removed. And of course, Rosie and I are sorry for your loss. You
are always in our prayers.

Last call, sort of. I received a mail from three more people who
wanted to participate and contribute. I will respond to you
during the weekend. Please don't think I am not interested. This
can be a lot of fun. By the way, a trunk scanner is not
necessary but a real neat toy to own.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                      Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs - Part 2

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 19 Jul 2001 15:08:00 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:34:14 -0400
Subject: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs - Part 2


Records of the Clinton OSTP Related to UFOs and Extraterrestrial
Intelligence - Part 2

"Remember the game that the editor of the "Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists" played with the clock's hands on the cover of the
magazine? I wonder how many minutes before midnight we are on
this issue." Scott Jones writing to Science Advisor Jack Gibbons
on December 13, 1994


  On June 1, 1994 Clinton Science Advisor received a letter from
  Laurance Rockefeller asking if there had been any developments
  in Gibbons effort to get answers to the Roswell mystery. In
  addition, for the first time in the OSTP documents, the name
  of Melvin Laird, former Secretary of Defense for President
  Nixon is mentioned. Rockefeller mentions in the letter that it
  was Laird who had advised that Rockefeller go to Gibbons as
  the proper "point of contact and coordination with the federal
  government."

  Included with the letter was a copy of a letter that
  Rockefeller had received from Laird a couple weeks before.
  Rockefeller attached it to show Gibbons Laird's "support for
  our approach of constructively seeking release of
  information."

  The Laird letter did state that the efforts towards
  "declassification of any government projects which might have
  been associated with Unidentified Flying Objects seems to be
  on the right track." More importantly Laird outlined his
  personal opinion about what the final answer would be.

  I am sure that should classification be lifted, some
  individuals will be disappointed as certain of these phenomena
  will be pretty well explained. Any review will certainly
  disappoint some individuals who have built up some rather
  extreme antidotal and uncollaborated accounts, which the
  removal of classification might discredit to a large extent.
  Removal of undue classification will remove the speculation of
  some of these reports."

Also in the June 1, 94 letter Rockefeller announced that he had
conducted preliminary discussions with a group who were planning
a United Nations Conference on extraterrestrial intelligence. He
hinted to Gibbons that the group could use someone of Gibbons
stature and knowledge to make the United Nations effort a
success.

  Only days after Melvin Laird had sent his letter to
  Rockefeller over the question of declassification, and it's
  possible implications for the subject of UFOs, Clinton's
  general Counsel Robert G. Damus sent out a memorandum to
  Agency heads regarding Clinton's proposed declassification
  Executive Order titled "Declassification of Selected Records
  within the National Archives of the United States."

  The draft of the order prepared by the National Security
  Council proposed a major declassification of materials in the
  National Archives. After reading the draft, Rockefeller must
  have felt that disclosure was only a short distance away.

  Even though the OSTP was not on the distribution list a copy
  of the proposal was found in the office files. The draft
  proposal asked for the immediate declassification of 48.8
  million pages of information held by the United States
  Archives. The spirit of the proposal was described as,

The interests of the United States and its citizens are best
served by making information regarding the affairs of Government
readily available to the public and

Wheras, large number of classified records in the permanently
valuable holding of the National Archives and Records
Administration no longer require national security protection.


  It is not known yet how the declassification proposal document
  got to Gibbon's office, but the office copy was attached to a
  letter from Anne Bartley, Trustee and President of the
  Rockefeller Family Fund. Anne was the niece of Laurance
  Rockefeller, daughter of Winthrop Rockefeller. Her name
  appears a couple of times in the OSTP files so it appears that
  she played a role in the Rockefeller initiative.
  Interestingly, Anne had a strange tie in to the Clinton
  administration. Her father Winthrop, had like Bill Clinton,
  been Governor of Arkansas.

  Anne Bartley's letter was written on July 27th, almost two
  months after the proposal was first circulated. In the letter,
  Bartley asked Dr. Gibbons if he thought if " a relaxation of
  the classification system" would " be helpful in producing
  more information about extraterrestrial intelligence."

  Bartley also reminded Gibbons of the promise he had made in
  the February 4, 1994 meeting he had with Laurance and herself,
  "You suggested that you would initiate an informal inquiry
  into the availability of information within federal agencies
  about the 1947 Roswell, New Mexico, event. Is there anything
  to report?"

  As the summer of 1994 came to an end, the Rockefeller team
  figured their efforts to reveal the secrets of UFOs and
  extraterrestrial intelligence were about to produce fruit.
  Gibbons had "initiated an informal inquiry" on Roswell, and
  President Clinton had produced the Executive Order to force
  mass declassification of documents. The scene was one of an
  imminent disclosure of some sort.

  In mid August Scott Jones wrote Gibbons offering what he
  thought was more fuel for the fire. He offered Gibbons the
  advise of astronaut Ed Mitchell in "areas that Laurance, you,
  and I have been discussing." "Mitchell," Jones wrote, "passed
  me the word... he would be glad to meet with you."

  Further, Jones, who was sharing information with CIA agent
  Ronald Pandolfi, reported to Gibbons the involvement of CIA
  Director James Woolsey's efforts to uncover the UFO secret.
  "He has a document search under way," wrote Jones but "has not
  discovered anything of significance."

  Jones suggested that perhaps Gibbons and Woolsey would benefit
  by sharing information. "You may want to talk to Woolsey about
  what you are doing," wrote Jones,"... Woolsey believes that
  the public could handle any disclosure the government might
  make on this subject."

  This disclosure about the active UFO role of James Woolsey in
  the August 11, 1994 Jones letter is important. It provides a
  independent dated letter supporting Dr. Greer's contentions
  that 1) Woolsey was supportive of UFOs 2) Woolsey was actively
  attempting to uncover the truth and 3) Woolsey was cut off -
  unable to discover anything about what was really going on.

  In addition, this letter (combined with the appearance of
  Woolsey's wife at the April 1997 briefing that Greer provided
  for interested Congressmen, and other powerful Washington
  movers and shakers) goes a long way to demolish the September
  16, 1999 Woolsey denial of UFO interest and support. This
  denial was issued following Greer's telling of the Woolsey UFO
  briefing in the introduction to his 1999 book
  "Extraterrestrial Contact."

  Just when everything seemed to be going so well, Jack Gibbons
  ended the party. In a handwritten note, on White House
  stationary, dated August 17, 1994 he wrote Laurance.

I apologize for my silence, but I was awaiting news from the Air
Force. Yesterday I received the material they've been working on
for some months, Report of the Air Force Research regarding the
"Roswell Incident." It appears to be a thorough study, and will
also be used as input to the GAO analysis, which is a much
broader study. Will get back to you after we've had a chance to
go over the document. Incidentally, I told Claiborne Pell about
this situation yesterday."

  Two days later Gibbons and Pell met for lunch. Undoubtably, the
  conclusions of the final Air Force report were discussed. The
  OSTP files contain a letter from Gibbons thanking him for the
  lunch. Enclosed with the hand-written thank-you letter Gibbons
  enclosed "the final summary text of the Air Force report on the
  'Roswell Incident.'"

  On September 5, 1994 Laurance Rockefeller wrote back
  acknowledging the Gibbons note about the final Air Force
  report. He did not acknowledge having seen a copy of the
  report. Rockefeller simple wrote, "We are grateful for your
  leadership on this issue and when you feel it is appropriate,
  we would welcome the opportunity to talk to you about it."

  Three days later Secretary of the Air Force Sheila E. Widnall
  sent a copy of the Air Force Press release to Gibbons,
  outlining the conclusions of the study "to locate records that
  would explain an alleged 1947 UFO incident."

  The Air Force Press conference had been held without even
  telling New Mexico Congressman Steven Schiff who had helped
  begin the government investigation of the Roswell case with his
  March 11, 1993 letter to Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. The
  release was made before Schiff had even read the final Air
  Force report,giving him no chance to dispute the final
  conclusions.


Cutting Schiff out of the loop is strange protocol, considering
that it was in Schiff's March 1993 letter that Schiff asked that
Secretary Aspin "direct such a review be undertaken on a
priority basis and that representative or representatives of the
Department of Defense and the responsible Military Departments
promptly arrange to brief and provide me with a written report
providing a current, complete, and detailed description and
explanation of both the nature of what was recovered, and all
official actions taken on the matter. (Roswell)"

  The conclusion of the Roswell report was not what the
  Rockefeller team had hoped for. A copy of the Air Force news
  release in the OSTP files described the Air Force's final
  conclusions.

The Air Force research did not locate or develop any information
that the "Roswell Incident" was a UFO event nor was there any
indication of a "cover-up" by the Air Force. Information
obtained through exhaustive record searches and interviews
indicated that the material recovered near Roswell was
consistent with a balloon device of the type used in a
then-classified project. No records indicated or even hinted at
the recovery of "alien" bodies or extraterrestrial materials.

  The Rockefeller disappointment with the Air Force Report was
  not expressed to Gibbons officially until three months after
  the report was issued. Rockefeller, as wrote in his standard
  diplomatic style. The December 9th letter from Rockefeller to
  Gibbons, and his key Roswell aide Skip Johns, read in part.

Thank you again for being so generous with your time in
discussing our areas of mutual interest and concern. . . I was
delighted to see that we share this openness to a new paradigm.

We will continue to explore our interest in extraterrestrial
intelligence... We continue to believe that the President's
initiative toward a full declassification of unnecessarily
classified materials would be a very useful step in this
direction and urge you to do all that you can to push this
process along.

I hope we made it clear that we were very grateful for your
initiative in stimulating the recent Air Force Review of the
Roswell incident. Although many who are students of UFOs felt
that the report was not complete, your leadership in bringing
this about was an important step.

We are continuing our citizens' reconnaissance of the
extraterrestrial intelligence phenomena. We fully understand
that with all the pressing current matters on your desk you do
not find it feasible to devote substantial time to this area.
However, we would like to take the opportunity of keeping you
informed and from time to time seek your counsel.

  Rockefeller's chief assistant in the White House UFO
  initiative, Scott Jones, was much quicker at voicing his
  disagreement with the Air Force conclusions. The OSTP files
  have a copy of a nine-page review written by Scott Jones. It
  was sent to Gibbons office only six days after the Air Force
  Roswell press conference. The report was titled "Assessment and
  recommendations for Action on the Report of Air Force Research
  Regarding the 'Roswell Incident.'"

  Jones, undoubtably speaking with Rockefeller's blessing, wrote
  of the report:

On message from the Air Force Report is that they still have
confidence that this issue can be "managed." There are other
messages of equal importance, which suggest that the game is
changing. The Air Force must deeply regret that it was forced to
say anything public about Roswell. They know the tenacity of the
small group of UFO researchers who will follow any lead to the
grave, and in this report they have been forced to expose
additional leads.

The most important event is that after December 1969, when the
Air Force closed Project Blue Book and announced that they were
out of the game, they are now back in the field. It may turn out
that they actually are not a major player, but have been forced
to suit up again."

Several important precedents have been established by the Air
Force effort:

1) The subject of UFO phenomena and government knowledge about
it is now viable in the public domain.

2) Interviewees were provided with authorizations from either
the Secretary of the Air Force or the Senior Security Official
of the Air Force that would officially allow discussion of
classified information, if applicable, or free them from any
prior restrictions in discussing the matter, if such existed.

  Jones, besides commenting on the September Air Force Roswell
  report spent a great deal of his assessment paper expressing
  views on the entire UFO problem. These conclusions and
  assessments outlined by Jones are important because they
  indicate where the entire Rockefeller team stood on the key UFO
  issues, and hence which ideas they were passing on to the
  Clinton administration. Secondly they help clarify the views of
  Jones who was very much silent in public concerning his own
  view from "The inside." Jones was a key player , serving not
  only as a key aide to Rockefeller, but as a key aide to Senator
  Claiborne Pell, Chairman of the powerful Foreign Relations
  Committee, who was also had an active interest in UFOs. These
  Jones insights, outlined in his Roswell review, can be reviewed
  in specific topics:

Congress - "There is no evidence that the leadership of the
Congress is paying any attention to the current effort, but the
involvement of the General Accounting Office, the investigative
arm of the Congress, charged with examining all matters related
to the receipt and disbursement of public funds, is significant.

President - The President remains the critical player in this
drama. Maybe each President is not automatically briefed on the
subject. But somewhere around the President, someone knows where
to task for the briefing. My guess is that it is someone within
the National Security Council. Someone in the directorate who
survives administration after administration. Dangerously (for
democracy and accountability) it could be someone in the private
sector. . . If the President asks for it (briefing) with force
it cannot be withheld. If he merely shows casual interest, he
might be kept in the dark.

  The disappointment and disagreement with the Air Force
  conclusions by UFO researchers was found and described in the
  OSTP files. They were much less diplomatic about their views on
  the Roswell Report, than used by Laurance Rockefeller. Although
  Gibbons files contained the counter arguments, there were no
  indications anyone in OSTP answered the charges, or took any
  investigative actions.

  The first letter to arrive from in Gibbon's office came from
  aviation and science writer Don Berliner, writing on behalf of
  The Fund For UFO Research. Berliner enclosed a paper he had
  written titled "Air Force Explanation of 1947 'Roswell' UFO
  Crash a Lot of Hot Air." Berliner wrote:

The U.S. Air Force recently "explained" the highly controversial
story of material recovered from an alleged UFO that crashed in
central New Mexico in 1947 as a once secret Project Mogul
balloon. A careful analysis of the 23-page official report, by
the Fund for UFO research, has revealed enough holes in the Air
Force theory to bring down the sturdiest of balloons."

  The other comments on the Air Force Roswell Report found in the
  OSTP papers was a 28 paper identified as Document 24 in the
  collection. This letter with attachmentswas written by UFO
  researcher, writer, and lecturer Stanton Friedman. It was
  titled "The Roswell Incident: The USAF and the New York Times."
  There was no indication of when the OSTP received the document,
  or even how the Friedman paper got into Gibbon's office.

  Stanton characterized the Roswell report as a "preemptive
  strike against the GAO" and a continuation of "a long, easily
  documented, history of USAF misrepresentation about UFOs."

In a careful analysis of the Air Force Report Friedman carefully
pointed out the flaws in the reports argument for the 1947
Roswell crash being caused by a Mogul balloon.

  As 1994 came to a close the records of the OSTP showed that
  discussion of Roswell by the Rockefeller group had stopped.
  Actions and statements by President Clinton in 1995 and beyond
  seemed to indicate that the topic of Roswell had been raised
  with the President. This became evident when during the
  Lewinsky investigation

  More importantly, it appeared that President Clinton didn't
  believe the Air Force Roswell explanation any more than the
  Rockefeller group, or the UFO researchers who had sent in
  dissenting papers into the Gibbons office.

  Clinton's lack of faith in the September 1994 Air Force Report
  was evident during a late November 1995 trip to Belfast,
  Northern Ireland to promote a peace plan in the war torn
  country. During the lighting of the city Christmas tree,
  Clinton read a letter from a thirteen-year-old Belfast boy
  named Ryan dealing with Roswell. He then proceeded to answer
  the letter with a response that to the untrained eye seemed
  nothing more than an attempt to entertain the crowd with a
  humorous reply. In effect, the reply was loaded with meaning.

"And to all of you who have not lost your sense of humor, I say
thank you. I got a letter from 13-year-old Ryan from Belfast.
Now, Ryan, if you're out in the crowd tonight, here's the answer
to your question. No, as far as I know, an alien spacecraft did
not crash in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947. (Laughter.) And,
Ryan, if the United States Air Force did recover alien bodies,
they didn't tell me about it, either, and I want to know."
(Applause.)

Speeches prepared for sitting Presidents are carefully prepared
affairs. Whatever ends up in them does not get there by
accident. In the Reagan administration for example, speeches
went through up to 30 drafts, and had to be cleared through up
to 25 agencies, departments, and individuals.

President Clinton appeared to say he wasn't being told the whole
story on Roswell, and he like everyone else would like to be
told what really happened.

In late 1994 the discussion turned from Roswell to abductions
and author Whitley Strieber. In a December 13, 1994 letter,
found in the OSTP files, Scott Jones wrote Gibbons sending him
the latest of Strieber's books "Breakthrough."

Following the initial April 1993 briefing given to Gibbons,
Jones had provided Strieber's first book 'Communion'. Jones
wrote that he was sending the manuscript in part because he
believed Gibbons would find

That some of its speculations are mirrored in official studies
and assessments that you have discovered in the government .
While I hope this is true, I would not really be surprised if
you tell me some day when it is appropriate for us to have a
full discussion on the subject, that government really failed to
address the metaphysical nut of the problem.

Consciousness is the core issue. If the government hasn't
realized this, it has kept itself out of the loop of possible
understanding of the phenomena and what responses to make.

  This was not the first time Jones had talked to Gibbons about
  the importance of the mind. As mentioned in Part 1, Jones had
  mentioned mind control research during the February 4th
  face-to-face meeting with Gibbons. In that discussion Jones
  warned that the UFO phenomena was being used to cover mind
  control research.

  An interesting sidelight to this apparent insight by Jones
  about the "core' issue, is the fact that the idea of the
  importance of the metaphysical went back almost 50 years to the
  very first days of UFO research done by Canadian UFO researcher
  Wilbert Smith.

  In the often quoted Top Secret "Memo to the Controller of
  Telecommunications" most researcher quote Smith's four points
  identifying what he learned about the flying saucers while
  making inquiries in the states. 1) The matter is the most
  highly classified subject in the United States 2) Flying
  saucers exist 3) A group headed by vannevar Bush is working on
  the problem 4) Matter is considered of "tremendous
  significance.

  Most researchers , however, ignore the very next line which
  indicates the United States government may have realized right
  from the very beginning that the metaphysical was the "core"
  issue. In the very next line of the memo following the four
  points Smith wrote:

I was further informed that the United States authorities are
investigating along a number of lines which might possibly be
related to the saucers such as mental phenomena and I gather
that they are not doing too well since they indicated that if
Canada is doing anything at all in geo-magnetics they would
welcome a discussion with suitably accredited Canadians.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                      Ufology: Proto-Science Or Farce?

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:31:41 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:37:01 -0400
Subject: Ufology: Proto-Science Or Farce?


Having just reviewed the Orange County, California, MUFON site
in regard to the UFO symposium this weekend, I come away deeply
pessimistic.

With only a very few exceptions, I see speakers with huge axes
to grind, not scientifically oriented truth-seekers accustomed
to the give and take of real scientific endeavour.

I see people who have no (zero, nada) understanding of the
requirement for peer review, critical examination of proposed
theories, and the like.

Instead, for the most part, I see a proliferation of
pseudoscience advanced by giant egos each of whom thinks his own
work is unassailable, but each of whom bridles whenever anyone
has the audacity to ask questions.

Sorry folks; that ain't science. It's more like a sick joke.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                          Secrecy News -- 07/19/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 12:28:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:40:25 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 07/19/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
July 19, 2001

**INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT QUESTIONED
**FBI MANAGEMENT CRITICIZED


INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT QUESTIONED

"Is the CIA's refusal to cooperate with Congressional inquiries
a threat to effective oversight of the operations of the Federal
Government?"

That rather leading question was the topic of an unusual hearing
before two subcommittees of the House Government Reform
Committee yesterday.

The hearing was unusual because the established structures of
intelligence oversight are rarely criticized within Congress
itself, and Republican committee chairmen rarely speak of the
CIA with anger and indignation.  But yesterday they did.

"The CIA is assaulting Congress's constitutional responsibility
to oversee executive branch activities," said subcommittee
chairman Rep. Stephen Horn (R-Calif.)  "The CIA believes it is
above that basic principle in our Constitution.  We do not
agree."

"Tell me why I shouldn't be outraged," said Rep. Christopher
Shays (R-Conn.), also a subcommittee chair.  "When faced with
persistent institutionalized [CIA] resistance to legitimate
inquiries, we're compelled to reassert our authority,"

The congressional ire was triggered by the CIA's refusal to
participate in a committee hearing on computer security at the
Agency.

"Neither I nor any CIA representative will testify," wrote DCI
George J. Tenet bluntly on July 17.  He noted that House
Intelligence Committee chairman Porter Goss "urged me not to
testify."  See Tenet's letter here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/07/tenet.html

This prompted a fascinating discussion at yesterday's hearing of
the respective oversight roles of the House Intelligence
Committee and the House Government Reform Committee;  the
adequacy of the House Intelligence Committee's performance;  the
definition of intelligence "sources and methods" (which, by
House rule, are the exclusive purview of the Intelligence
Committee);  the need to limit oversight of sensitive
intelligence matters;  the role of the General Accounting Office
in intelligence oversight; and other fundamental issues.

The questions were generally better than the answers.  Some of
the testimony concerning national security classification was
incorrect or misleading.  But the official anger at the CIA was
palpable, and may yet have policy consequences for the Agency.

The witness statements from the hearing are posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_hr/index.html#oversight

"It is important to curtail growing GAO initiatives to
investigate intelligence activities," according to a 1994 CIA
memorandum on CIA policy toward the General Accounting Office
that was released yesterday.  The memo, authored by Stanley M.
Moskowitz (who went on to fame if not fortune as CIA station
chief in Tel Aviv), is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/gao/ciapolicy.html

CIA computer security policy, which was initial subject of the
House Committee's inquiry, is governed by DCI Directive 6/3,
"Protecting Sensitive Compartmented Information Within
Information Systems."  That 5 June 1999 Directive was obtained
by Secrecy News and is now available here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/DCID_6-3_20Policy.htm


FBI MANAGEMENT CRITICIZED

A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday on "Reforming FBI
Management: The Views from Inside and Out" became a forum for
airing the usual litany of complaints about the Bureau, and then
some.

FBI Deputy Assistant Director Kenneth Senser described several
of the internal security reforms that have been adopted in the
wake of the Robert Hanssen espionage case, including: enhanced
computer audit procedures, an expanded polygraph program, and an
enhanced security clearance reinvestigation program.

Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy noted that the
Justice Department has provided the Committee with an
unclassified version of the long-awaited "Bellows" review of the
Wen Ho Lee espionage investigation.  But that unclassified
document has still not been "scrubbed" for privacy and other
considerations, and so it is not yet releasable to the public.
A Justice Department spokesman said today that preparation of a
public version of the report is a "top priority."

Prepared statements from yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing are posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_hr/index.html#fbi2

Former Energy Department counterintelligence official Notra
Trulock criticized a recent General Accounting Office report on
the FBI's handling of the Wen Ho Lee investigation.

"The report contains some factual errors that, if left
uncorrected, perpetuate the web of deceit the FBI has spun to
cover up its own mistakes and blunders in the Wen Ho Lee
debacle," Mr. Trulock wrote to the GAO on July 17.  See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/whl_gao_trulock.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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                    Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:02:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:53:22 -0400
Subject: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article


Errol,

I wrote this article in an attempt to report on it like the
media should have done. As usual, they did not do adequate
coverage of it. And if they did, they made light of it.

-----

Wednesday, July 18, 2001

Michel M. Deschamps
239 Jogues Street
Sudbury, Ontario
P3C 5P7



Dear Editor,

I don't know if you and your readers were aware of this, but on
May 9th, 2001, a press conference of high importance took place
in Washington, D.C. to which very little media coverage was
given.

Recently, I had the opportunity to see and hear the webcast for
myself as I recorded the presentation on audio tape . After
listening to it several times, I felt compelled to write about
it. What follows is an article describing what basically took
place at the Conference, using actual quotes from some of the
participants.

Along with this letter, I've also included an interesting reply
to a writer from The Washington Post, which underlines the
manner in which this subject is usually approached by the media.
This press conference has opened the door, leaving it up to the
reporters to do real investigative journalism... which is
something that has been grossly lacking when it comes to the
subject of UFOs.

I would hope that a person such as yourself would do it justice
by printing this article in your newspaper. Thank you.


Disclosure Project Seeks Congressional Hearings on UFOs and
Related Matters

By Michel M. Deschamps

UFO Eyewitness/Researcher/Historian

On Wednesday, May 9th, 2001, a press conference of an
unprecedented nature took place at the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C. Dr. Steven Greer, founder of The Disclosure
Project, introduced a panel of 20 former government and military
intelligence witnesses who went on to describe their involvement
with UFOs and related matters. According to them, the U.S.
government has withheld UFO information from the public for at
least 50 years. Each participant concluded by stating that they
would be willing to testify under oath, before Congress, to the
truthfulness of their testimonies.

That is, in essence, the main goal of the Disclosure Project:
Get the U.S. Congress to hold public hearings on UFOs and
Extraterrestrial Intelligence, giving these credible witnesses
the opportunity to speak out and reveal to the world what they
have learned. In the past, other former military witnesses have
stated that they would be willing to come forward, as long as
they're granted immunity from prosecution for violating their
oath of secrecy. In any case, these revelations could literally
bring down the wall of secrecy that has surrounded this subject
for more than 50 years.


Dr. Greer's opening statement was pretty straightforward:

"We're here today to disclose the truth about a subject that has
been ridiculed and questioned, denied for at least fifty years.
The men and women who are on this stage and the some 350
additional military intelligence witnesses to the so-called UFO
matter and extraterrestrial intelligence can prove - and will
prove - that we are not alone."

He went on to say...

"In 1993, a group of military advisers to this project and I met
out in the countryside in Virginia, and we decided that it was
time for civilians, military, intelligence and other people to
come together to disclose the truth about the subject which is
called UFOs... "

"... We can establish, through these witnesses... which now
number over 400, and these are people who have been inside the
CIA, NSA, NRO, Air Force, Navy, Marine, Army - all divisions of
the intelligence and military community as well as corporate
witnesses, contractors to the government. These were folks who
have been involved in so-called Black Budget or Covert
unacknowledged projects. These unacknowledged special-access
projects are taking in at least 40 to 80 billion dollars per
year... The reason we are coming forward now is that we are
asking for the U.S. Congress and for President Bush to move
towards an official inquiry and disclosure on this subject."


Representatives from the media - both National and
International - were also present. As usual, reporters could
not help themselves from making funny remarks about the
conference. In an article written by Declan McCullagh of Wired
News, a paragraph begins with "Call it a close encounter with an
X-Files spin-off. The three-hour event featured testimonials
from all-too-earnest UFO buffs... " These witnesses are NOT UFO
buffs! They are former government and military intelligence
people with high-level security clearances who, in some cases,
were entrusted with the national security of the United States.

One such person is Robert Salas.

On March 16th, 1967, Salas was the missile launch officer at
Oscar Flight, a SAC (Strategic Air Command) facility near
Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. That morning, security
personnel reported to him that they were seeing strange lights
in the sky, but he disregarded the call. He subsequently
received a second call about a glowing, oval-shaped object...


  "Right after that call, I woke up my commander who was on a
  rest period... as I was telling him about the phone calls, my
  weapons started going down, one after the other. They went into
  a no-go condition. What we call no-go condition, they were
  unlaunchable. We lost somewhere between 6 and 8 weapons, that
  morning, within minutes of having received that second phone
  call of a UFO hovering outside the front gate."

-- Robert Salas --


Documents which were declassified in 1996 as a result of a
Freedom of Information Act request, indicate that another
facility, Echo Flight, also suffered the same inexplicable loss
of weapons:

o ALL TEN MISSILES IN ECHO FLIGHT AT MALMSTROM LOST STRAT ALERT
WITHIN TEN SECONDS OF EACH OTHER.

o THE FACT THAT NO APPARENT REASON FOR THE LOSS OF TEN MISSILES
CAN BE READILY IDENTIFIED IS CAUSE FOR GRAVE CONCERN TO THIS
HEADQUARTERS.


One document also states that:

o Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of
Echo Flight during the time of fault were disproven. A Mobile
Strike Team, which had checked all November Flight's LFs on the
morning of 16 March 67, were questioned and stated that no
unusual activity or sighting were observed.


NOTE: It is important to mention that between November 8 and 10,
1975, similar incidents took place at Malmstrom Air Force Base,
where a bright, glowing, orange oval-shaped object, 300 feet in
diameter, hovered over a missile silo, rendering one of the
nuclear missiles useless. The UFO was subsequently tracked on
radar as it left the area, disappearing off the scope at an
altitude of 200,000 feet. I have the documents that pertain to
these events, which are also available at the FBI website (See
bottom of article).


Another very interesting revelation was made by Carl Wolfe, who
was a precision electronics photographic repairman with a Top
Secret Crypto clearance in the United States Air Force:

"I was stationed at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. In
1965... in mid 1965, I was loaned to the Lunar Orbiter project
at NASA, at Langley Field... They had problems with a piece of
electronic equipment that was bottle-necking their production of
photographs... I went to the facility... I was taken into the
laboratory where the equipment was malfunctioning... An airman,
2nd Class, was in the darkroom at the time... I was also an
airman, 2nd Class... I was interested how the whole process
functioned... how the data got from the Lunar Orbiter to the
laboratory... asked the young man if he'd describe the process
to me... he did... ."

"About 30 minutes into the process, he said to me, in a very
distressed way: by the way, we've discovered a base on the back
side of the moon! And then he proceeded to put photographs down
in front of me. And clearly, in these photographs were
structures... mushroom-shaped buildings, circle buildings and
towers. And at that point, I was very concerned because I knew
we were working in compartmentalized security. He had breached
security and I was actually frightened at that moment, and I did
not question him any further."

-- Carl Wolfe --


In regards to the handling of photographs, I should point out
the testimony given by Donna Hare, who worked for an aerospace
company between 1967 and 1981:

"During that time, I was a design illustrator/draftsman... I did
the launch slides and landing slides and also projecting
plotting boards... lunar mattes for NASA. We were a contractor
but most of the time, I worked on site in building 8. I had the
opportunity to do extra work during down time, which was between
missions. And I walked into a photo lab which was the NASA lab
across the hallway. I had a Secret clearance, which is not that
high, but I was able to go into restricted areas, which this
was. At the time, I was talking to one of the techs in there
and... "

"... He drew my attention to a photograph, a NASA photograph...
it had a dot on it... And I said: 'Is that a dot on the
emulsion?'... And he said: 'A round dot from the emulsion don't
leave round shadows on the ground!'... And this was an aerial
photograph of the Earth... and the shadows of the craft, or
whatever it was, were in the same angle as the trees... I
realized at this point that it was kept secret because I asked
him: 'what are you going to do with this piece of information?'
And he said: 'we always airbrush these out before we sell them
to the public'... there's pesky little creatures appearing on
this photograph, they wanted to get rid of."

-- Donna Hare --


She went on to describe two incidents... one involving a guard
and some photographs; the other involving the Apollo astronauts:

"A guard told me that he was asked to burn some photographs...
and not to look at them. And there was a guard... another guard
guarding him, who is in green fatigues, watching him burn the
photographs. And he said he was too tempted, he looked at one
and it was a picture of a UFO... He immediately was hit in the
head and he had a big gash in his forehead... he was knocked
out. And he's terrified... so he would have to be protected."

"Another incident... I knew someone in quarantine with the
Apollo astronauts. He told me that the Apollo astronauts saw
crafts on the moon when we landed. And that is what he told me.
And he also was afraid... he said that the astronauts are told
to keep this quiet; they are not allowed to talk about it."


The most fascinating testimony came from Clifford Stone, who
stated that he took part in crash/retrievals of UFOs and their
occupants:

"I was Sergeant 1st Class, United States Army. I had a Secret
clearance... I could get the clearance that I needed to do
whatever it was that was necessary for me to do at the time on
special operations, when I was called in on those... "

"What I'm referring to here is that I was involved in situations
where we actually did recoveries of crashed saucers, for lack of
better terms, degrees thereof. There were bodies that were
involved with some of these crashes. Also some were alive. While
we were doing all this, we were telling the American public
there was nothing to it; we were telling the world there was
nothing to it."

-- Clifford Stone --


"I've been involved where we have recovered these objects we've
known to be of extraterrestrials. In 1969, I had an event that
happened to me while I was stationed at Fort Lee, Virginia. We
went to Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. That was my first exposure
to any time we would be recovering an unidentified flying
object... Later on, most people involved were to be told that
there was nothing onboard... that it was nothing more than just
a crash of one of our aircraft. I know better... because I was
one of the people that approached it with a Geiger counter to
get surface readings. I was the first person to go ahead and see
that there were bodies on it. That would be the first of
approximately twelve events. UFO crashes are not events that
take place everyday... they're rare! I know we're not alone in
the universe. I know that the absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence... it's evidence that has been denied to the
American people! ... and I tell you this: if Congress calls me
in and says 'Will you testify in detail what you know?'... I
stand here today prepared and ready to do just that. Governments
must never lie to the people... for no reason!


These four witnesses have allowed us a glimpse into the UFO
phenomena and the government's handling of the information. But
they represent a very small percentage of the number of people
worldwide - both military and civilian - who have seen and
reported UFOs, have spent a lifetime investigating UFOs... and
at times, have been ridiculed because of their UFO encounters.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. But we can start chipping
away at it by having more of these highly credible witnesses
come forward without fear of repercussions, and allow them to
reveal to the world what they know about the reality of UFOs and
Extraterrestrial Intelligence!


Anyone wishing to view the archived webcast can log on to:
http://www2.connectlive.com/events/disclosureproject/


For those who are interested in reading the Press coverage of
the Disclosure Project Press Conference at the National Press
Club, May 9, 2001, go to:

http://pnahay.home.sprynet.com/ufo_disclosureproject.htm


Anyone interested in viewing actual FBI UFO documents can log on
at:

http://foia.fbi.gov/room.htm

Once there, click on "Unusual Phenomena". This will bring up the
list of documents.


Anyone wishing to contact me:


Michel M. Deschamps

MUFON Provincial Section Director for Sudbury, Ontario, Canada &
UFO Eyewitness/Researcher/Historian

E-mail: ufoman@ican.net
Phone: (705) 670-2759








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 20

              UFO References At Recent 'SETI/ET Life' Hearings

From: Giuliano 'Jimmy' <Marinkovicc9a4ag@clarc.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:18:01 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:02:36 -0400
Subject: UFO References At Recent 'SETI/ET Life' Hearings



Hello List members,

A retrospective of the recent hearings in the US Congress about
SETI and extra-terrestrial life has just appeared on the Web.

When that news was been released last week, I started to
wonder how much this was connected to any influence of the
National Press Club conference in May about UFO Disclosure. And
indeed, during the hearings there were references to UFOs from
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. You can find the whole report at:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=373

I've pasted those UFO references, below:

-----

<snip>

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) then popped into the hearing room
long enough to say "there is a lot of importance in
understanding life in various environments. I am not a proponent
of earmarking for this at this point. It is important that the
applications teach us things here on Earth. When I speak of the
ISS and the Space Shuttle I talk about HIV/AIDS, diabetes. When
we sent John Glenn into space it was done on the question of
aging."

Chris Chyba replied "I agree with your comments on earmarking.
But I think that the benefits are both concrete and less
concrete. The more we understand about the universe, the better.
This research can inspire young people and students. NSF grants
to the SETI institute currently fund programs to teach young
people about physics, biology, and chemistry in an integrated
way so as to make everything more compelling." As for practical
applications Chyba said "The Allen Telescope will have spin-offs
- one example - we will be synthesizing images - medical imagery
- cancer research imaging."

Rep. Rohrabacher then brought up an issue many people associate
with the topic of life in the universe: UFOs. "Are there some
intelligent life forms visiting this planet?" In asking this
question (one he admitted that no one else would ask - so he
would) Rohrabacher cited a story presented to him by two police
officers back when he was a newspaper reporter in Orange County.
Rohrabacher described this eyewitness report as being very
credible.

Neil Tyson replied "among all the forms of evidence you can
bring forth eyewitness testimony is the least reliable. "Just
saying 'I saw it' is not enough. I spend my life working in a
museum where artifacts matter."

Rohrabacher replied: "I have seen pictures. Have you seen any
evidence?" Tyson replied "I visited the UFO museum in Roswell.
It is filled with newspaper accounts of people's eyewitness
reports. This falls short of being proof and is not compelling
evidence to me."

Jack Farmer then joked "with regard to human abduction, I would
like to sign up and go!" Otherwise, with regard to the existence
of UFOs Farmer said "I have seen no compelling evidence." Ed
Weiler then said "I used to be a ground-based astronomer. In
looking at the sky I was always been able to identify moving
objects. I am certain that there is alien life out here. But the
physics that I understand suggest that it would take hundred or
thousands of years to make trip to the nearest star. The idea of
someone visiting us frequently is hard to contemplate."

Chris Chyba then said "In the film "The Day the Earth Stood
Still" the aliens did the obvious thing - they landed in
Washington DC. Why do the buzz all of these remote places?" He
then went on to say that we need to have an open mind coupled
with skepticism. In response, Rohrabacher joked about the
fictitious landing in Washington saying "yea, so they could see
all of the interesting people here!"

Rohrabacher then said "this chairman does not dismiss all of
these [UFO] reports. These cops saw something. I know that there
are 'black programs'. I worked in the White House. There were
things going on in the next office that I did not know were
going on." He then reiterated the need for people to keep an
open mind. Tyson replied jokingly "your mind should not be so
open that your brains fall out..."

Editor's note: Rohrabacher's office in the White House was next
door to Col. Oliver North's (Iran-Contra) office - hence his
comment about "not knowing what is going on in the next office".
 From Rohrabacher's comments - and discussions with people who
know him - I do not get the sense that he was suggesting that
the White House is hiding anything about UFOs. Rather, he is not
as willing as the scientists on the panel (and others) to
dismiss the possibility that there is more to the UFO question
than perhaps we're all aware of.


Related links

12 July 2001: "Life in the Universe", Hearings before the House
Science Committee's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

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


Re-sent by:

<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Giuliano-Jimmy-Marinkovicc                                  |
|   Ante Starchevicca 25/c, 23000 Zadar, Croatia, Europe        |
|   telephone: +385-98-64-78-23                                 |
|   e-mail: 9a4ag@clarc.org                                     |
|   SMS/e-mail: 38598647823@cronet.tel.hr (up to 160 char.)     |
|   ICQ UIN #66584465                                           |
|   ICQ/e-mail: 66584465@pager.icq.com                          |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   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@yahoogroups.com                             |
|   http://groups.yahoo.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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:55:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:05:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:57:27 -0700


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:24:59 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:55:57 -0700

<snip>

Ed, List, All -

 >>And, if I understand what you say, the MP didn't confirm the
 >>cameraman's story, so you have decided that he was involved in a
 >>different recovery of an alien craft.

 >Yes that is correct. The MP and the cameraman were at different
 >crash sites. The MP's was the 3rd and 4th of July and the
 >cameraman's was on the 31st of May through the 2nd of June. The
 >cameraman's crash site was located at the base of the Magdalena
 >Mts. and the MP's was somewhere south of hwy 380 and west of hwy
 >54 in the area known as the Jornada Del Muerto, about two hours
 >and forty five minutes west of Roswell, by the MP's reckoning.

Which would create still another crash site, to go along with
the seven or eight others that have been identified... The
flying saucers were raining out of the sky.

 >>>There must have been some reason; secrecy perhaps. I agree with
 >>>Grant. Folks in power do exactly as they damn well please. Yes
 >>>the cameraman's story is outrageous on the face of it (but too
 >>>surreal for Ray to invent).

 >>Sorry, but the cameraman was not one of those in power, but one
 >>of the flunkies who was dispatched to take pictures. When
 >>protocols are violated, normally it is red tape rather than
 >>protocols that deal with highly classified materials. In this
 >>case, there is no reason for the protocols to be violated, so
 >>not only do we have something that is far from the established
 >>procedure, we have no reason for that procedure to be rejected.
 >>It's a double problem.

 >The cameraman was just following orders and although he violated
 >"protocol" he was ordered to do so, I guess for secrecy's sake.
 >And as the Daniel Sheehan story illustrates, protocols cannot be
 >used as a way to discredit unusual circumstances. Those who
 >claimed that Sheehan's facts were bullshit because somehow
 >untold numbers of protocols had been violated are now shown to
 >be mistaken.

But that still doesn't answer the question. There was no reason
for the protocols to be violated, and following the protocols
would have protected the secrets. While this, in and of itself
does not prove the cameraman's story bogus, it certainly should
raise a red flag.

 >>And if not the cameraman then who
 >>did create the footage. Ray?

<snip>

 >I don't know how many times I have to write this but Ray was the
 >victim of hoaxers and not the perpetrator of a hoax. He asked
 >them to see if they could transfer some damaged fragments of
 >footage to video. They then created the hoaxed tent footage and
 >told Ray the it was legitimate. He was not part of this except
 >to supply the old and damaged footage. This information has been
 >distorted, just as you are now doing to give the impression that
 >Ray hired out the AA.

The point is that part of the film, released to various members
of the news media, has been admitted to be a hoax. Ray was the
conduit for that bit of video tape. Fair or not, that should
raise a red flag.

 >>I have driven from Albuquerque to Socorro and from Roswell to
 >>Socorro, and the drive from Roswell is much worse. I have a map
 >>made by the state of New Mexico in 1947. It shows that the
 >>highway from Albuquerque to Socorro is primary highway,
 >>obviously two lanes, and is paved the whole way. According to
 >>the map, it is just under 80 miles from Albuquerque to Socorro.

 >Yes, that's true but it was a very slow drive because of the
 >factors I mentioned previously. It also it takes a while just to
 >get from Kirkland Field to Hwy 25.

 >>Roswell requires a drive that is on a combination of paved,
 >>gravel and graded roads. In other words, in some places the road
 >>was little more than a track plowed through the high desert.
 >>Even today, some of that road, while paved with blacktop, is
 >>narrow and has no shoulders. And, according to the map, it is
 >>nearly 160 miles from Roswell to Socorro, or twice as far.

 >Yes that's correct but you could travel relatively fast on those
 >roads because there was so little traffic so I still insist that
 >there wouldn't be that much of a time difference when everything
 >is considered. And remember we must consider the secrecy factor.
 >Hwy 380 would be much more secure to travel along and absolutely
 >no traffic pproblems and less chance of being noticed.

You can't travel faster on a track plowed through the desert
than you can on a paved highway with wide shoulders. And it
doesn't matter if people saw a military convoy because there
were convoys on the road all the time.

 >>This doesn't even consider the fact that in 1947, Roswell was a
 >>SAC base and Albuquerque was an AMC base. Wright Field, where
 >>the cameraman said they went first is also an AMC base. While it
 >>is certainly true that AMC aircraft could, and did, land at SAC
 >>bases, it makes more sense from them to fly into the AMC base
 >>because it was only half as far from the airfield to Socorro.

 >I don't think distance was a factor. There were other things to
 >consider. We have no idea of what they were thinking. The
 >cameraman said he landed in Roswell and those who stayed on site
 >were supplied from Roswell. The distance or ease of travel has
 >nothing to do with the cameraman's story. He was just following
 >orders.

The point is, that flying into Roswell doesn't make sense in the
context of the story being told. It would have been easier, quicker,
and smarter to fly into Albuquerque. This is another problem
that should raise a red flag.

 >>>Why didn't he use color film
 >>>for the autopsy? Especially the one in the brightly lighted
 >>>room? Where was the still photographer and the stationary motion
 >>>picture camera? Why weren't these protocols followed? They had
 >>>time to set it up because this was what, four or five weeks
 >>>after the crash?

  <snip>

 >>They _told_ him to shoot it in black and white? For heaven's
 >>sake, why?

 >I have no idea.

But this is something that shouldn't have been done. The autopsy
should have been shot in color and that it was not should raise
a red flag.

<snip>

 >>If you are going to violate the protocols, there must be a
 >>reason to do it. If there is no compelling reason, then the
 >>protocols would have been followed.

 >Again I have no idea why protocols were violated but I'm glad
 >they were. I suppose the compelling reasons were secrecy and
 >secrecy and perhaps a little more secrecy on top of that. The
 >fewer folks involved, and the simpler the procedures, the less
 >chance for a SNAFU. But SNAFUs cannot be avoided because when it
 >comes right down to it, the hierarchical nature of the Armed
 >Forces makes them vulnerable to mistakes of all kinds, no matter
 >what protocols are in place.

The protocols are in place to protect the secrecy. And the
protocols are in place to eliminate as many of the mistakes as
possible. The point, again, is that there was no reason to
violate the protocols and that they were should raise a red
flag.

<snip>

 >>Actually, they could prosecute him for income tax evasion
 >>without ever getting into what he sold... all they have to do is
 >>prove that he sold something and didn't pay the proper taxes on
 >>it. They can say that they don't believe the film authentic, it
 >>has already been aired on broadcast television so it would come
 >>as no surprise to the public, and they can say they are
 >>uninterested in its origin. All they care about is that income
 >>tax should have been paid and it was not.

 >>That says nothing about the authenticity of the film, it says
 >>nothing about its provenance, they are not revealing anything
 >>that has not already played on network television more than
 >>once, or that hasn't been featured in any number of national
 >>magazines and books, they can even point to those of us in the
 >>UFO field who believe the film to be faked, and still make the
 >>case that the cameraman not only didn't pay taxes on the sale,
 >>but conspired with Santilli to avoid paying those taxes. The
 >>cameraman is toast.

 >Well they haven't so far. There must be some reason for their
 >reluctance to bring charges.

Possibly because he doesn't exist?

 >>>But they've probably limited the cameraman's options
 >>>by threatening him with grim prospects if he ever reveals
 >>>himself , which according to Ray, he never intended in the first
 >>>place. He has stated that he is ashamed of his actions and
 >>>doesn't want to be know as a person who would break his oath of
 >>>secrecy for money.

 >>Which, of course, he is. He did break his oath for money, and if
 >>he really exists, he is known to those who would have access to
 >>the records. And they could get him without ever revealing a
 >>thing about the film that wasn't already known to the public.

 >But they haven't. And I know they would if they had the desire
 >to do so. The government realizes the footage is authentic and
 >isn't interested in drawing attention it. If the general public
 >begins to take a close look at the AA, questions will begin to
 >surface that might prove embarrassing to the controllers.

This, again, makes no sense. Attention has already been drawn to
it on any number of television programs, in books, and in
magazines. We have no evidence that the footage is authentic,
let alone that the government realizes this.

<snip>

 >>And how do you know that the Wilmots were experienced sky
 >>watchers, and if they were, they couldn't be fooled by something
 >>they thought unusual?

 >One of the great pastimes in NM is looking at the sky. Maybe
 >they weren't experienced but what they described doesn't sound
 >natural to me. What natural event or occurrence does it bring to
 >your mind?

Doesn't have to be a natural event. Could be a misidentification
of an aircraft, helicopter, balloon, or other manufactured
object. That's not the point.

<snip>

 >>So, what makes you think that this was the object that crashed?
 >>Granted, this is how Bill Moore came up with the July 2 date,
 >>but it really is speculative, based on the assumption that the
 >>Wilmots didn't make a mistake about what they saw, that they did
 >>have the date right, and it was the object that crashed. Seems
 >>to me that there are quite a few assumptions in there.

 >You're correct. We have no way of knowing whether this was the
 >object that crashed. I was mainly concerned with your
 >characterization of the Wilmonts' testimony as a "red herring"
 >when in actuality it may be an important piece of the Roswell
 >puzzle.

Ah, the point. The testimony is a red herring because we have
assumed that this object, whatever it was, is the one that
crashed, and we attach significance to the sighting without
knowing much about it. Ten years ago we attempted to learn
more about it, but, naturally, there was nothing more to be
learned given the time that had passed. The point is that we
have assumed that this object crashed, but we don't know and
that can throw off the time line.

 >>I have seen the debris footage and I have looked at if very
 >>carefully, and I see the word "video" in a string of other
 >>symbols. It jumps out at you and because I can see it doesn't
 >>make it a lie to say that I see it. And I see that you agree
 >>that there are some symbols/letters that resemble the word
 >>video... so how can this be "close to a lie" if you can see the
 >>same thing yourself? And isn't that language a bit strong?

 >Perhaps a bit strong (see Neil's post), but you must be looking
 >at a very blurred version of the AA debris. I agree with Neil
 >that what you call a "V" is actually a delta. The "I" resembles
 >the Phoenician symbol for our modern "Z" and the "E" is actually
 >two back-to-back "E"s and is almost exactly the same as the
 >Phoenician symbol for our modern "X". The resemblance of these
 >symbols to ancient scripts is, I believe, more than
 >circumstantial.

Yes, I have looked at Neil's post and was disappointed in the
rather muddy quality of it (No, Neil, I'm only suggesting that
having seen it on the video itself, I remember it as being
brighter is all). The point is an English word appears on this
alien I-bean, and I invite those here who wish to do so, look at
it and decide for themselves if the appearance of the word is
"circumstantial." To me, it was obvious when I first saw it.

 >We can discuss this after you view the AA Cds. All we ask is
 >that you keep an open mind.

Always look at new information with an open mind.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

               Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:09:29 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:40:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers


 >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:05:37 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

For a good laugh about aliens and nanotechnology:

http://www.aliendestiny.com/PageMexicoCity/RodolfoLinkAnalysis.htm


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Opne 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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                 Re: Ufology: Proto-Science Or Farce? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:49:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:49:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Ufology: Proto-Science Or Farce? - Hale


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Ufology: Proto-Science Or Farce?
 >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:31:41 +0000

 >Having just reviewed the Orange County, California, MUFON site
 >in regard to the UFO symposium this weekend, I come away deeply
 >pessimistic.

 >With only a very few exceptions, I see speakers with huge axes
 >to grind, not scientifically oriented truth-seekers accustomed
 >to the give and take of real scientific endeavour.

 >I see people who have no (zero, nada) understanding of the
 >requirement for peer review, critical examination of proposed
 >theories, and the like.

 >Instead, for the most part, I see a proliferation of
 >pseudoscience advanced by giant egos each of whom thinks his own
 >work is unassailable, but each of whom bridles whenever anyone
 >has the audacity to ask questions.

 >Sorry folks; that ain't science. It's more like a sick joke.


Hi,

"And god granted us with great and gifted Authors"


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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

             Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Relationship?

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:48:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:52:07 -0400
Subject: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Relationship?


To All:

In light of the reports by MILABs or 'Military Abductees',' I
thought the following article might be of interest.

Also relating to this article are the 'messages' that some
abductees receive - could they be from ETs or are they from these
other 'guys in the sky'?

Thanks to Marc Davenport for bringing this article to my
attention.

"Pravda.RU John Fleming: The Shocking Menace of Satellite
Surveillance."

The full article can be read at:

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/07/14/10131.html


Thanks All --

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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                 Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Wilson

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:58:04 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:59:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Wilson


 >From: Will Bueche <peer@peermack.org>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:14:04 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary

 >PEER - Program for Extraordinary Experience Research

 >We'd like to suggest to our colleagues that they may want to
 >consider not participating in any Discovery Channel/The Learning
 >Channel documentaries, due to this network's pattern of behavior
 >(illustrated by Mr. Velez and by what I am about to share).

I am pleased to learn that PEER has come forward to share
their experience with The Discovery / Learning Channel.

Similar types of manipulation and coercion tactics have been
shared with me for years by other abductees who have been
interviewed by them, including programs like NOVA. They are
told almost anything under the sun to get the witness -
abductee to appear on film. Then their stories are cut, thereby
manipulating the words of the abductee, leaving the
abductee to then be easily "debunked" by people like Oberg.
I have turned down many, many interviews because of the way
these programs and others have treated their "guests."

It is a sad state for television "documentary" and "science"
programs, but it is time the public saw them for what they
really are: Self-serving and in the business of "entertaining
for profit" rather than engaging in true scientific or
educational programming.

 >I am writing from Dr. Mack's organization, PEER, in Cambridge,
 >MA. We were nearly a part of a TLC/Discovery documentary last
 >year in which the producer personally visited us to explain
 >their intentions, prior to our agreement. She conveyed her deep

 >appreciation of spiritual dimension of experiences (one of Dr.
 >Mack's favorite areas), told stories of how she did anthropology
 >fieldwork in Tanzania (relating to Dr. Mack's work with
 >non-Western experiencers), and had also spent time with a
 >Tibetian Lama, and was "moved by the power of their ritual life
 >and their shamanic experiences." She shared how her cameraperson
 >had once lived with a tribe of indigenous peoples once for
 >another documentary (to illustrate their dedication to getting
 >to the depth of experiences). They explained were going to make
 >a very fine documentary about alien encounters that went deeper
 >than any before. We have letters from them that say the same:

This is what I have been told by other abductees. Someone on
the TV crew makes a personal connection with the people or
person they want to interview. When they get the person in
front of the camera however, it's a different story. They become
a "lamb for the slaughter."

 >"With regards to 'spin' we are neither trying to prove nor
 >disprove the phenomenon. We are looking to get away from a
 >polarized question of whether it is physically real or not.
 >There is clearly something very real happening to people and we
 >are keen to explore this in all its complexities rather than
 >make a trivialized, sensational film. It would be very easy to
 >make a film that debunks or is pro - but�Discovery is looking to
 >us for a more in-depth and considered program."

<snip>

 >I learned they'd decided to cut Dr. Mack out of
 >the documentary because what he said didn't match what they
 >wanted - so much for "discovery!"

When people see these programs today - whether they
be about a war or conflict between two countries or tribes, or
whether they be about UFOs or abductions, I have to wonder
if they feel the way I feel: Knowing how they lie and manipulate
the information regarding the UFO subject or the subject of
abductions, how can I believe anything else they have to say?

In other words, it is similar to the story about the boy who
cried wolf: Once they are caught in a lie, it is difficult to
believe anything else they have to say in their so-called
"documentaries" or "scientific programs."

 >If you have seen it I don't need to explain, but as one brief
 >example which illustrates that their intent was to 'polarize'
 >and 'disprove', after an experiencer mentioned reproductive
 >procedures, a scientist explained that it is impossible for

 >human beings to mate with another species. A fair statement to
 >make, if someone had been given an opportunity to note that
 >human beings have already spliced genes from animals into
 >plants, leaving the potential of breeding across species wide
 >open.

 >Again, I use this example not to start a specific argument about
 >this one point, but as an illustration of how the program would
 >follow experiencer stories with people who would essentially
 >debunk what they said, without ever having given the
 >experiencers or the researchers an opportunity to respond. And
 >why did they not have an opportunity to respond? Because part of
 >keeping secret the fact that they were raising debunking issues
 >meant they never asked experiencers to respond to such issues.
 >Their deception tainted the content. Condescending narration and
 >editing choices that subtly (or not too subtly) skewed the
 >viewers opinion also ran throughout the program.

 >There was no way on Earth that what they described to us had any
 >relationship at all to what they actually created. No
 >relationship at all. We were fortunate that they excised Dr.
 >Mack, but they exploited several people who had trusted our
 >opinion of the team. Some had good reason to take legal action
 >against them for failing to live up to their word to adequately
 >protect their identities.

 >We no longer believe any production company that is working with
 >Learning Channel/Discovery Channel, and we'd encourage everyone
 >in the field to decline any participation with that network.
 >Please note that this network uses different production houses.
 >But they are ultimately responsible. Given that the production
 >house that Mr. Velez refers to is a different one than the one
 >we dealt with (but is using similarly deceitful tactics) we'd
 >urge everyone to decline any invitation from any company working
 >for Learning Channel/Discovery Channel. Eventually, they will
 >have to make a policy of honesty, if they are to have our
 >participation.

 >That is our decision; we hope other researchers may feel the
 >same.

I certainly agree with PEER's decision. PEER should be applauded
for coming out publicly and essentially warning others not to
allow themselves to be used as a 'TLC-deception-tool'. The media
have been part of the UFO cover-up for over 50 years and very
little has changed.

When it comes to NOVA, TLC-Discovery and even National
Geographic, since I'm not into the new human "blood-sport"
programming of watching animals kill and be killed, and I've
been aware of their manipulative tactics regarding UFOs and
abductions, I just stick to insect stories. I figure, filming
insects.... how much of that could they screw up?

Plaudits to PEER!

-- 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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                 Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Wilson

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:58:04 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:06:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary - Wilson


 >From: Will Bueche <peer@peermack.org>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:14:04 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Documentary

 >PEER - Program for Extraordinary Experience Research

 >We'd like to suggest to our colleagues that they may want to
 >consider not participating in any Discovery Channel/The Learning
 >Channel documentaries, due to this network's pattern of behavior
 >(illustrated by Mr. Velez and by what I am about to share).

I am pleased to learn that PEER has come forward to share
their experience with The Discovery/Learning Channel.

Similar types of manipulation and coercion tactics have been
shared with me for years by other abductees who have been
interviewed by them, including programs like NOVA. They are
told almost anything under the sun to get the witness -
abductee to appear on camera. Then their stories are cut,
thereby manipulating the words of the abductee, leaving the
abductee to then be easily 'debunked' by people like Oberg.
I have turned down many, many interviews because of the way
these programs and others have treated their 'guests'.

It is a sad state for television documentary and science
programs, but it is time the public saw them for what they
really are: Self-serving and in the business of 'entertaining
for profit' rather than engaging in true scientific or
educational programming.

 >I am writing from Dr. Mack's organization, PEER, in Cambridge,
 >MA. We were nearly a part of a TLC/Discovery documentary last
 >year in which the producer personally visited us to explain
 >their intentions, prior to our agreement. She conveyed her deep

 >appreciation of spiritual dimension of experiences (one of Dr.
 >Mack's favorite areas), told stories of how she did anthropology
 >fieldwork in Tanzania (relating to Dr. Mack's work with
 >non-Western experiencers), and had also spent time with a
 >Tibetian Lama, and was "moved by the power of their ritual life
 >and their shamanic experiences." She shared how her cameraperson
 >had once lived with a tribe of indigenous peoples once for
 >another documentary (to illustrate their dedication to getting
 >to the depth of experiences). They explained were going to make
 >a very fine documentary about alien encounters that went deeper
 >than any before. We have letters from them that say the same:

This is what I have been told by other abductees. Someone on
the TV crew makes a personal connection with the people or
person they want to interview. When they get the person in
front of the camera however, it's a different story. They become
a 'lamb for the slaughter'.

 >"With regards to 'spin' we are neither trying to prove nor
 >disprove the phenomenon. We are looking to get away from a
 >polarized question of whether it is physically real or not.
 >There is clearly something very real happening to people and we
 >are keen to explore this in all its complexities rather than
 >make a trivialized, sensational film. It would be very easy to
 >make a film that debunks or is pro - but�Discovery is looking to
 >us for a more in-depth and considered program."

<snip>

 >I learned they'd decided to cut Dr. Mack out of
 >the documentary because what he said didn't match what they
 >wanted - so much for "discovery!"

When people see these programs today - whether they
be about a war or conflict between two countries or tribes, or
whether they be about UFOs or abductions, I have to wonder
if they feel the way I feel: Knowing how they lie and manipulate
the information regarding the UFO subject or the subject of
abductions, how can I believe anything else they have to say?

In other words, it is similar to the story about the boy who
cried wolf: Once they are caught in a lie, it is difficult to
believe anything else they have to say in their so-called
"documentaries" or "scientific programs."

 >If you have seen it I don't need to explain, but as one brief
 >example which illustrates that their intent was to 'polarize'
 >and 'disprove', after an experiencer mentioned reproductive
 >procedures, a scientist explained that it is impossible for

 >human beings to mate with another species. A fair statement to
 >make, if someone had been given an opportunity to note that
 >human beings have already spliced genes from animals into
 >plants, leaving the potential of breeding across species wide
 >open.

 >Again, I use this example not to start a specific argument about
 >this one point, but as an illustration of how the program would
 >follow experiencer stories with people who would essentially
 >debunk what they said, without ever having given the
 >experiencers or the researchers an opportunity to respond. And
 >why did they not have an opportunity to respond? Because part of
 >keeping secret the fact that they were raising debunking issues
 >meant they never asked experiencers to respond to such issues.
 >Their deception tainted the content. Condescending narration and
 >editing choices that subtly (or not too subtly) skewed the
 >viewers opinion also ran throughout the program.

 >There was no way on Earth that what they described to us had any
 >relationship at all to what they actually created. No
 >relationship at all. We were fortunate that they excised Dr.
 >Mack, but they exploited several people who had trusted our
 >opinion of the team. Some had good reason to take legal action
 >against them for failing to live up to their word to adequately
 >protect their identities.

 >We no longer believe any production company that is working with
 >Learning Channel/Discovery Channel, and we'd encourage everyone
 >in the field to decline any participation with that network.
 >Please note that this network uses different production houses.
 >But they are ultimately responsible. Given that the production
 >house that Mr. Velez refers to is a different one than the one
 >we dealt with (but is using similarly deceitful tactics) we'd
 >urge everyone to decline any invitation from any company working
 >for Learning Channel/Discovery Channel. Eventually, they will
 >have to make a policy of honesty, if they are to have our
 >participation.

 >That is our decision; we hope other researchers may feel the
 >same.

I certainly agree with PEER's decision. PEER should be applauded
for coming out publicly and essentially warning others not to
allow themselves to be used as a 'TLC-deception-tool'. The media
have been part of the UFO cover-up for over 50 years and very
little has changed.

When it comes to NOVA, TLC-Discovery and even National
Geographic, since I'm not into the new human 'blood-sport'
programming of watching animals kill and be killed, and I've
been aware of their manipulative tactics regarding UFOs and
abductions, I just stick to insect stories. I figure, filming
insects... how much of that could they screw up?

Plaudits to PEER!


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 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                 Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article -

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:46:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:11:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article -


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article
 >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:02:09 -0400

<snip>

 >Another very interesting revelation was made by Carl Wolfe, who
 >was a precision electronics photographic repairman with a Top
 >Secret Crypto clearance in the United States Air Force:

 >"I was stationed at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. In
 >1965... in mid 1965, I was loaned to the Lunar Orbiter project
 >at NASA, at Langley Field... They had problems with a piece of
 >electronic equipment that was bottle-necking their production of
 >photographs... I went to the facility... I was taken into the
 >laboratory where the equipment was malfunctioning... An airman,
 >2nd Class, was in the darkroom at the time... I was also an
 >airman, 2nd Class... I was interested how the whole process
 >functioned... how the data got from the Lunar Orbiter to the
 >laboratory... asked the young man if he'd describe the process
 >to me... he did... ."

 >"About 30 minutes into the process, he said to me, in a very
 >distressed way: by the way, we've discovered a base on the back
 >side of the moon! And then he proceeded to put photographs down
 >in front of me. And clearly, in these photographs were
 >structures... mushroom-shaped buildings, circle buildings and
 >towers. And at that point, I was very concerned because I knew
 >we were working in compartmentalized security. He had breached
 >security and I was actually frightened at that moment, and I did
 >not question him any further."

Hi Michel.

There are serious problems with many of CSETI's The Disclosure
Project witnesses and their testimonies that I and others have
noted. For example, according to your transcript above, Carl
Wolfe was "loaned" to the Lunar Orbiter project in mid-1965 to
trouble shoot problems with its production of photographs. There
he was told about the discovery of a base on the back side of
the Moon and shown photographs which clearly showed buildings
and towers.

If these photographs of the lunar base were taken by any of the
five Lunar Orbiter spacecraft which photographed the Moon from
August 1966 to August 1967), then it could not have been mid-
1965 when Carl Wolfe was shown the photos while on loan to the
project.

Yes, there were some earlier spacecraft that photographed the
Moon from close range, such as Ranger 8 in July 1964 and later
Ranger probes which were intentionally crashed into the lunar
surface and Luna 9 which was the first to soft land on the Moon
in February 1966. None of these obtained any high resolution
images of the back side of the Moon.

The Lunar Orbiters did photograph the back side but these images
were generally much lower in resolution (around 100 meters) than
the photos taken of near side where the spacecraft came to
within a few tens of miles above the lunar surface. Unless some
of the lunar base structures were very massive, one would not be
able to "clearly" see individual buildings on the Moon as Carl
Wolfe claims.

Of course, some photographs were said to have been lost due to a
transmission failure on Lunar Orbiter 2 (November 1966) and a
film advance problem with Lunar Orbiter 3 (February 1967) and
one can argue that they were not really lost, just never
released. Even if that is the case, they couldn't clearly show
what Carl Wolfe was shown and certainly not in 1965.

There is one additional thing I want to mention which may or may
not have a bearing on what this young man allegedly showed Carl
Wolfe. I think we all agree that TV does play a role in shaping
our opinions and beliefs, although we may not all agree on the
extent. If Carl Wolfe actually met this young man around 1967,
then either one or both could have watched 'The Invaders' on TV.
In the Spring of 1967 an episode called 'Moonshot' dealt about
such an alien base on the Moon which NASA knew all about. A soon
to be launched team of astronauts would have been able to verify
the existence of this alien base in person but the aliens needed
to buy some time to close their lunar base and move out - as
suggested by David Vincent (Roy Thinnes). To do this the aliens,
which are hard to distinguish from humans (maybe Dr. Eric Walker
was a fan of 'The Invaders' too) sabotaged the manned Moon
launch.

The 'Moonshot' episode was first aired on TV just weeks after
the fatal Apollo 1 'accident' that set back the first manned
lunar landing by a year or two. A coincidence or a cryptic NASA
public disclosure that aliens are indeed already here?

With such dubious or suspect testimony by CSETI's insiders, can
you blame the media or Congress for not getting too excited
about Dr. Greer's UFO disclosures. In my opinion, there is more
and better evidence to support the view that the entire Moon is
an artificial alien base than for the alleged pre-Apollo photos
of alien buildings and towers on the back side of the Moon.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                            Molecular Electronics

From: Michael Briggs <mbriggs@newpress.upress.ukans.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:05:57 -0500, UTC
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:01:09 -0400
Subject: Molecular Electronics


Hi, Errol:

Given the interest in nanotechnology on this List, I wonder if
anyone caught the July 17th edition of the New York Times, which
includes an article on Hewlett-Packard's announcement that it's
just received a patent for hooking up "molecular-scale devices
by essentially assigning each [molecular] switch a random marker
- like a phone number - that allows signals to be routed to it."

The same article also includes a discussion of the work of Dr.
James M. Tour and other scientists at Rice and Penn State, whose
research was featured in the June 22nd issue of Science
Magazine. There Tour et al "report that, for the first time, an
individual molecule has been flicked on and off like a light
switch." The implications of that are also discussed.

This may be old news to some on the List or trailing in the wake
of more advanced theories already discussed by fellow listers,
but I thought I'd mention the article in case others had missed
it and/or were curious about it.


Best wishes,

Mike Briggs
mbriggs@ku.edu









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                    UFO Crash On Plains Of St. Augustin?

From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:13:42 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:12:46 -0400
Subject:  UFO Crash On Plains Of St. Augustin?



Hello.

Does anyone have information or link about the alleged UFO crash
at Plains of Saint Agustin in 1947?

Thank you so much.


Regards,

Thiago









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 21

              Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:04:30 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:17:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article - Hall


 >Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:46:13 -0400
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:02:09 -0400

 >>Another very interesting revelation was made by Carl Wolfe, who
 >>was a precision electronics photographic repairman with a Top
 >>Secret Crypto clearance in the United States Air Force:

 >>"I was stationed at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. In
 >>1965... in mid 1965, I was loaned to the Lunar Orbiter project
 >>at NASA, at Langley Field... They had problems with a piece of
 >>electronic equipment that was bottle-necking their production of
 >>photographs... I went to the facility... I was taken into the
 >>laboratory where the equipment was malfunctioning... An airman,
 >>2nd Class, was in the darkroom at the time... I was also an
 >>airman, 2nd Class... I was interested how the whole process
 >>functioned... how the data got from the Lunar Orbiter to the
 >>laboratory... asked the young man if he'd describe the process
 >>to me... he did... ."

 >>"About 30 minutes into the process, he said to me, in a very
 >>distressed way: by the way, we've discovered a base on the back
 >>side of the moon! And then he proceeded to put photographs down
 >>in front of me. And clearly, in these photographs were
 >>structures... mushroom-shaped buildings, circle buildings and
 >>towers. And at that point, I was very concerned because I knew
 >>we were working in compartmentalized security. He had breached
 >>security and I was actually frightened at that moment, and I did
 >>not question him any further."

<snip>

 >Hi Michel.

 >There are serious problems with many of CSETI's The Disclosure
 >Project witnesses and their testimonies that I and others have
 >noted. For example, according to your transcript above, Carl
 >Wolfe was "loaned" to the Lunar Orbiter project in mid-1965 to
 >trouble shoot problems with its production of photographs. There
 >he was told about the discovery of a base on the back side of
 >the Moon and shown photographs which clearly showed buildings
 >and towers.

 >If these photographs of the lunar base were taken by any of the
 >five Lunar Orbiter spacecraft which photographed the Moon from
 >August 1966 to August 1967), then it could not have been mid-
 >1965 when Carl Wolfe was shown the photos while on loan to the
 >project.

<snip>

 >With such dubious or suspect testimony by CSETI's insiders, can
 >you blame the media or Congress for not getting too excited
 >about Dr. Greer's UFO disclosures. In my opinion, there is more
 >and better evidence to support the view that the entire Moon is
 >an artificial alien base than for the alleged pre-Apollo photos
 >of alien buildings and towers on the back side of the Moon.


List,

Yes, pay attention to Nick and others who provide knowledgable
and well-informed critiques (including those by Kevin Randle on
the Roswell case).

Nick (and I) may not be 'right' or have the full story in any
particular instance, but our main message is: Stop accepting at
face value what people say merely because it is something you
would like to believe is true.

Self-deception is rife in the UFO field.

Some of these people are flat lying, or self-deluded in some
way. They simply could not have experienced what they claim.

All such claims need to be subjected to Peer Review
(knowledgable critique) before being accepted as 'gospel'.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 21

               Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:26:29 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:21:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - McCoy


 >Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:48:53 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Relationship?

 >To All:

 >In light of the reports by MILABs or 'Military Abductees',' I
 >thought the following article might be of interest.

 >Also relating to this article are the 'messages' that some
 >abductees receive - could they be from ETs or are they from these
 >other 'guys in the sky'?

 >Thanks to Marc Davenport for bringing this article to my
 >attention.

 >"Pravda.RU John Fleming: The Shocking Menace of Satellite
 >Surveillance."

 >The full article can be read at:

 >http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/07/14/10131.html



This is pretty wild stuff, to do some of the things described in
the article you'd have to have a very large and "hot" nuclear
reactor _in_orbit_. Whoever Mr. Fleming is he should lay off the
cheap Vodka. Oh, also the Russians aren't slouches when it
comes to satlellite technology.

I'm not saying the MILAB concept doesn't have merit, but
to get satellites to do some of the things that border on
'Star Trek' stuff or worse, you'd have to have a ship the
size (at our current tech level) of the USS Enterprise -
the aircraft carrier I mean. Also a way around several
layers of Physical, Chemical, Atmospheric - for that matter
Quantum Physical Laws - to do this stuff.



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 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                  38th National UFO Conference, Austin, TX

From: SMiles Lewis <smiles@elfis.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 01:32:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:27:10 -0400
Subject: 38th National UFO Conference, Austin, TX




     The 38th Annual

NATIONAL UFO CONFERENCE

September 14th, 15th & 16th

Alamo Drafthouse Cinema

409 Colorado Street
Austin, Texas

www.nufoc.net
www.drafthouse.com

-Introduction

-Schedule of Events

-Advance Registration Discount

-Accomodations


Celebrating the 40th anniversary of America's first publicized
incidence of alien abduction (the Betty & Barney Hill case),
scientists, experiencers, writers and researchers will share
with you their conclusions about the true nature of UFOs and
related phenomena.

The National UFO Conference has been educating the public about
UFO reality for 38 years. This year's conference will break new
ground by combining the perspectives of the most under reported
UFO research findings while also focusing on the phenomenon of
Saucer Culture and the media's influence.

Learn all there is to know about UFOs and Alien Abductions,
including how they relate to consciousness research, government
cover-ups, mind control experiments, hyperdimensional realities,
psychedelic shamanism and much more. Peer beyond the veil!

See what is revealed as we tear away the curtain of secrecy. See
the best researchers and film makers converge for 3 days and 3
nights of hard science and informed speculation about where
we've been, where we stand now and where we are going as
evidenced by the bizarre phenomenon known as UFOs.

Whether investigating UFO landing trace cases, alien abduction
experiencers or the nature of academia's ridicule for the UFO
subject, this collection of presenters will blow your mind!
Special panel discussions will give you a hands on opportunity
to learn all you need to know about UFOs and related phenomena.

Plus, there will be three nights of UFO Films and LIVE Flying
Saucer Rock n Roll with special guests and psychotronic
entertainment! And don't forget to sample the Alien Cuisine
being imported from Off-World.

Scheduled Presenters:

Robert Anton Wilson, Jenny Randles, Constance Clear, Patrick
Huyghe, Karl Pflock, Kenn Thomas, Greg Bishop, Eugenia
Macer-Story, James Arthur, David Perkins, James Moseley, Mack
White, Russ Dowden, Tom Deuley, Loren Coleman, Diana Hoyt,
Pamela Stonebrooke, Bruce Wright, Ed Conroy, Erik Stearns,
Dennis Stacy, Don Webb, Miles Lewis and more.

For individual Speaker Bios...

http://www.nufoc.net/speakers.htm

-=-=-=-

Schedule of Events

The 38th Annual
National UFO Conference
September 14th, 15th & 16th, 2001
Alamo Drafthouse Cinema
409 Colorado Street


FRIDAY September 14th
"The Future of Ufology"

     First Session 10am-6pm
-Introductions by SMiles Lewis
-Press Conference/Open House for Media & Local Civic Authorities
-Jim Moseley- "Shockingly Close To The Truth: Memoirs of a Skeptical
  Believer"
-Dennis Stacy-  "The Field Guide Approach to UFOs"
-Tom Deuley- "The El Indio Saucer Crash"
-Karl Pflock- "The Roswell 'Saucer Crash': Some Hard Lessons for
  Ufology""
-Diana Hoyt- "UFOs - Forbidden Science"
-Panel Discussion Q&A (Best Future Research/Gaining Legitimacy)
  featuring: Deuley, Pflock, Hoyt, Randles

BREAK

     Second Session 7pm-2am
-Introductions by SMiles w/Mack White "Conspiracy Gnosis"
-Jenny Randles- "Media Influence on public experiencing of the UFO"
-Music: Eugenia Macer-Story "MultiDimensional Music"
-Panel Discussion Q&A (Media Influence & Psychological Warfare)
  featuring: Randles, Wright, Dowden, Thomas, White
-Documentary: UFOs It Has Begun (1978)
-Movie: To Be Announced!
-Music: To Be Announced!


SATURDAY September 15th
"Alternate Paradigms for the UFO Phenomenon"

     Third Session 10am-6pm
-Introductions by SMiles w/Russ Dowden
-Eugenia Macer-Story- "Configurational Time: Conceptual & Sensory
  Perception of Multidimensional Events"
-David Perkins- "Gaia: Implications of Parapsychology on UFOs"
-Pamela Stonebrooke- "Astral Contact Experiences"
-Greg Bishop- "Psychedelics, Alien Abductions, Shamanism and Alien
  Writing"
-James Arthur- "UFOs, Mushrooms, God and the Near Death
  Experience"
-Panel Discussion Q&A (Alternate Paradigms for Anomalous Events/
  Experiences)
  featuring: Macer-Story, Perkins, Stonebrooke, Bishop, Arthur,
  Randles

BREAK

     Fourth Session 7pm-2a
-Introductions by SMiles w/Donn Webb "Sabbath of the Zeppelins"
-Special Guest:  Robert Anton Wilson!
-Panel Discussion (Fact/Fiction the Art Interface w/in Anomalous
Narratives) featuring: Wright, Adams, White, Lewis and...
-Documentary/Art: Tribulation 99 & More!
-Documentary/Art: To Be Announced!
-Music: To Be Announced!


SUNDAY September 16th
"Integrating the Anomalous"

     Fifth Session 10am-6pm
-Introductions
-Constance Clear- "Abductee/Experiencer Therapy or Event
  Investigations"
-Ed Conroy- "From UFO Researcher to Cabalist: A Report on
C onroy's Transformation after his Journey through "Communion"
-Loren Coleman- "A Fortean Looks at the Last Four Decades"
-Patrick Huyghe- "Swamp Gas Times: My 20 Years on the UFO Beat"
-Kenn Thomas- "The ParaPolitics of UFOs"
-Panel Discussion Q&A (Balancing Experiencer Therapy w/Event
  Investigations) featuring: Clear, Lewis, Conroy and...

BREAK

     Sixth Session 7pm-2a
-Introductions by SMiles w/Erik Stearns "Remote Viewing"

-Jenny Randles- "Earth Lights, Time Storms and Atmospheric
  Physics revealed by UFO Related Phenomena"
-Panel Discussion Q&A (Electromagnetics & Anomalous Phenomena)
  featuring: Randles, Beal, Lewis, Perkins and...
-Music: Pamela Stonebrooke "The Galactic Diva Sings"
-Documentary: Contact UFO - Alien Abduction
-Movie: Spectres of the Spectrum with Director Craig Baldwin
-Music: To Be Announced!

-=-=-=-

Advance Registration Discounts:

     SIX MUST SEE SESSIONS
Friday the 14th, Saturday the 15th & Sunday the 16th
     September 2001

     Advance Registration Before September 9th
$30 Individual Day Session Pass
     (MUST SPECIFY WHICH SESSION 1 / 3 / 5 )
$20 Individual Night Session Pass
     (MUST SPECIFY WHICH SESSION 2 / 4 / 6 )
$45 Day/Night Combo Pass (2 same day sessions)
     (MUST SPECIFY WHICH DAY Fri/Sat/Sun )
$120 All Sessions Pass (all 6 sessions)

SEND CHECKS OR MONEY ORDERS TO:

National UFO Conference
PO Box 33509
Austin, TX 78764
Make checks payable to: National UFO Conference

Seating is limited so please inquire immediately.

Tickets Available with Credit Card On-Line Very Soon

-=-=-

Where To Stay

The Embassy Suites Hotel has been kind enough to offer a
Conference Discount to attendees of the National UFO Conference.
The discount price is $119 plus taxes per night. This is a fine
hotel with many amenities such as free covered parking, free
shuttle service to and from the hotel within a two mile radius
(the Conference is half a mile to the North) plus a free
breakfast (made to order/much more than a Continental Breakfast)
and more.

For reservations please contact
Denise Arnold: <mailto:denise_arnold@hilton.com>
(512) 469-9000
Embassy Suites
300 South Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78704

     For other affordable accomodations:

Austin Motel - 1220 South Congress Avenue
$60+ per night (one mile from conference)
(512) 441-1157
<mailto:reservations@austinmotel.com>
<http://www.AustinMotel.com>

San Jose Hotel - 1316 South Congress Avenue
$70+ per night (one mile from conference)
800 574-8897 / (512) 444-7322
<http://www.SanJoseHotel.com>

La Quinta Inn Austin Capitol - 300 East 11th Street
(512) 476-1166 (less than a mile from conference)

Homestead Studio Suites - 507 South 1st Street
(512) 476-1818 (less than a miles from conference)

-=-=-

What To Do In Austin
Besides the Conference

- See the Texas State Capitol Building
1100 Congress Avenue

- Take a Tour of Town Lake - Capital Cruises
208 Barton Springs Road (512) 480-9264

- Visit the Austin Nature & Science Center
301 Nature Center Drive (512) 327-8180

- Visit the Bob Bullock Texas History Museum
1800 North Congress Avenue (512) 936-8746

- See the Governor's Mansion
1010 Colorado Street (512) 463-5518

- Visit the Umlauf Sculpture Garden & Museum
605 Robert E. Lee Road (512) 445-5582

- See the Sunset at Mount Bonnell Park
3800 Mt. Bonnell Drive

- Take a swim at the historic Barton Springs Pool
2100 Barton Springs Road (512) 867-3080

- Walk, job, bike along Town Lake Trails
- Take a Walking Tour of Historic Downtown
- Hear some Live Music on 6th Street 'Live Music Capital of the
   World'
- Eat at one of our Many Fine Restaurants

- Watch the Bat Colony at the Congress Ave bridge 'Bat Capital
   of America'. In midsummer, more than a million bats make their
   home under the bridge.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:42:15 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:09:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Gates


 From what I have been able to read on the List it would appear
like most/all stories from various individuals except for Gerald
Anderson about a crash on the plains trace their origin back to
Barney Barnett. Said in other words, other then Gerald Anderson
we apparently have no 'first hand' witnesses who saw the alien
space ship and or alien carcasses on 'the Plains'. Yes I am
skipping the AA camerman because other then what we hear that
"Ray said" nobody knows, or has seen him, or independently
talked to him.

In essence, the 'witnesses' we do have seem to trace the tale
back to Barney and or the infamous unidentified cowboy.

A couple of observations about Gerald Anderson. First I wouldn't
solely take the word of a former SEAL at the SEAL musem as being
factual and correct even though he essentially claimed that all
the SEALS knew each other blah blah.

On the other hand why hasn't anybody who checked into this story
wrote the Records Center and requested a copy of Geralds's
military records? This would be independent of Gerald. If the
answer is "I didn't have time", I would be glad to take the time
to request copies of the records if somebody would forward me
the information.

If truth is what everybody is interested in, lets start with the
military records and see what is correct.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:44:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:12:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Gates


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:49:10 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >Yes, I'm sure that it is another fictional narrative - but this
 >one from "The Jim Ragsdale Story" as published by the
 >International UFO Museum and Research Center. On page three,
 >which is supposed to be Ragsdale's own words, it says, "I looked
 >inside the hole, and inside, there was a chair that looked like
 >a throne. It looked like it was made of rubies and diamonds."

Perhaps it was the alien equivilant of one of our toilets. A
throne made of rubies and diamonds..... Who knows, could spawn a
new movie called 'Raiders Of The Jewel Encrusted ET Toilet
Seat.....'

:)

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 >
   Jul > Jul 21

               Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:39:25 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:13:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hatch


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:09:29 -0700

 >>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:05:37 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >For a good laugh about aliens and nanotechnology:

 >http://www.aliendestiny.com/PageMexicoCity/RodolfoLinkAnalysis.htm

Hello Royce:

I just don't get it at all. Is there some special significance
to the "link artifact" that I missed? Did somebody snatch it out
of a UFO or whatever?

I've been getting home late recently and missed some Art Bell
radio shows.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                           The Watchdog - 07-21-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 07:00:19 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:31:45 -0400
Subject: The Watchdog - 07-21-01


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

***MASS UFO SIGHTING IN NEW JERSEY***

~ Filer's Files Reports On Mass New Jersey Sighting
~ ABC News.com Covers New Jersey Sighting, Website Has Video
~ Astronomer Unable To Explain New Jersey Lights
~ Mysterious Lights Bring Cries of UFOs
~ ABC Station Covers New Jersey UFO Sighting
~ Mass New Jersey UFO Sighting Still A Mystery
~ More Info On New Jersey Sighting
~ Multiple Witnesses See Orange Lights, V Formation in New Jersey

***NEWS***

~ Where The Steers And The Aliens Play
~ More Hype and Nonsense From Alien Destiny.com, No Proof
~ Chile: UFO Sightings Increase
~ Russian Crop Circle











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 21

               Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 06:57:05 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:39:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Hatch


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Relationship?
 >Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:26:29 -0700

 >>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:48:53 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>Subject: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Relationship?

 >>To All:

 >>In light of the reports by MILABs or 'Military Abductees',' I
 >>thought the following article might be of interest.

 >>Also relating to this article are the 'messages' that some
 >>abductees receive - could they be from ETs or are they from these
 >>other 'guys in the sky'?

 >>Thanks to Marc Davenport for bringing this article to my
 >>attention.

 >>"Pravda.RU John Fleming: The Shocking Menace of Satellite
 >>Surveillance."

 >>The full article can be read at:

 >>http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/07/14/10131.html

 >This is pretty wild stuff, to do some of the things described in
 >the article you'd have to have a very large and "hot" nuclear
 >reactor _in_orbit_. Whoever Mr. Fleming is he should lay off the
 >cheap Vodka. Oh, also the Russians aren't slouches when it
 >comes to satlellite technology.

 >I'm not saying the MILAB concept doesn't have merit, but
 >to get satellites to do some of the things that border on
 >'Star Trek' stuff or worse, you'd have to have a ship the
 >size (at our current tech level) of the USS Enterprise -
 >the aircraft carrier I mean. Also a way around several
 >layers of Physical, Chemical, Atmospheric - for that matter
 >Quantum Physical Laws - to do this stuff.


Hello GT:


I read the article for about 12 seconds, and then simply
stopped. Maybe its just the Dos Equis in me, but my BS alarm
deafened me halfway thru the very first paragraph!

Pravda.RU: Main: More in detail
19:16 2001-07-14
JOHN FLEMING: THE SHOCKING MENACE OF SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE FULL
VERSION OF THE ARTICLE

"Unknown to most of the world, satellites can perform
astonishing and often menacing feats..."

True

"A spy satellite can monitor a person�s every movement, even
when the 'target' is indoors or deep in the interior of a
building or traveling rapidly down the highway in a car, in any
kind of weather (cloudy, rainy, stormy).

I have certain reservations about that.....

"There is no place to hide on the face of the earth. It takes
just three satellites to blanket the world with detection
capacity. Besides tracking a person�s every action and relaying
the data to a computer screen on earth, amazing powers of
satellites include reading a person�s mind....."

Oh now I see. Three sats in orbit can read my mind, or anyone
else's. Hey look guys, I knew this special French girl for
decades. I defy any psychic on Earth to read her mind. Is John
Fleming, or anyone else printed in Pravda (Russian for "truth")
trying to tell me that High Geek in Space can do that?

Maybe its the beer again, but this sounds like the Weekly World
Fleming, (I mean Pravda, no I mean News.)

I am sure there are real surprises in spy-sat technology, some
of which might not become public for decades.

But! Reading Francoise' intriguing mind? Not even the battleship
Enterprise can do that. Her own mother never could. Sorry
Pravda-Fleming, no way.


Very best wishes

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                 Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article -

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:54:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:51:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article
 >Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:04:30 +0000

 >>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:46:13 -0400
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article

 >>>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:02:09 -0400

 >>>Another very interesting revelation was made by Carl Wolfe, who
 >>>was a precision electronics photographic repairman with a Top
 >>>Secret Crypto clearance in the United States Air Force:

 >>>"I was stationed at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. In
 >>>1965... in mid 1965, I was loaned to the Lunar Orbiter project
 >>>at NASA, at Langley Field... They had problems with a piece of
 >>>electronic equipment that was bottle-necking their production of
 >>>photographs... I went to the facility... I was taken into the
 >>>laboratory where the equipment was malfunctioning... An airman,
 >>>2nd Class, was in the darkroom at the time... I was also an
 >>>airman, 2nd Class... I was interested how the whole process
 >>>functioned... how the data got from the Lunar Orbiter to the
 >>>laboratory... asked the young man if he'd describe the process
 >>>to me... he did... ."

 >>>"About 30 minutes into the process, he said to me, in a very
 >>>distressed way: by the way, we've discovered a base on the back
 >>>side of the moon! And then he proceeded to put photographs down
 >>>in front of me. And clearly, in these photographs were
 >>>structures... mushroom-shaped buildings, circle buildings and
 >>>towers. And at that point, I was very concerned because I knew
 >>>we were working in compartmentalized security. He had breached
 >>>security and I was actually frightened at that moment, and I did
 >>>not question him any further."

<snip>

 >>With such dubious or suspect testimony by CSETI's insiders, can
 >>you blame the media or Congress for not getting too excited
 >>about Dr. Greer's UFO disclosures. In my opinion, there is more
 >>and better evidence to support the view that the entire Moon is
 >>an artificial alien base than for the alleged pre-Apollo photos
 >>of alien buildings and towers on the back side of the Moon.

 >List,

 >Yes, pay attention to Nick and others who provide knowledgable
 >and well-informed critiques (including those by Kevin Randle on
 >the Roswell case).

 >Nick (and I) may not be 'right' or have the full story in any
 >particular instance, but our main message is: Stop accepting at
 >face value what people say merely because it is something you
 >would like to believe is true.

 >Self-deception is rife in the UFO field.

 >Some of these people are flat lying, or self-deluded in some
 >way. They simply could not have experienced what they claim.

 >All such claims need to be subjected to Peer Review
 >(knowledgable critique) before being accepted as 'gospel'.


I wrote this article in order for people to be aware that this
press conference took place and show that some government and
military witnesses are willing to come forward and reveal what
they know... if given the opportunity... and protection from
prosecution.

I have had 18 sightings and all I have to show for them are
sketches and written accounts. Apparently, that is not good
enough for anyone.

But these folks... and many more like them...have credentials
and can prove that they were working in areas where they
potentially came across UFO information.

I am leaning towards giving these participants the benefit of
the doubt a lot more than to Dr. Greer, knowing full well his
personal approach to UFOs... and the underhanded manoeuvers he
may have performed in the past regarding other people's work.

If the witnesses did misrepresent themselves, and this thing is
a bust.. then I challenge anyone to take over the reins, get a
hold of more reliable eyewitnesses, and do one better. In any
case, a press conference of this type was long overdue.

This is not an American "thing". We owe it to the whole planet
to push the issue of Disclosure... at all cost. This UFO secrecy
has lasted way too long.


Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps
UFO Eyewitness/Researcher/Historian








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:49:13 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 18:02:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:42:15 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >A couple of observations about Gerald Anderson.  First I wouldn't solely
 >take the word of a former SEAL at the SEAL musem as being factual
 >and correct even though he essentially claimed that all the SEALS
 >knew each other blah blah.

I'm sorry that I didn't make this clear. The SEALs Museum in
Miami is a semi-official organization created by the SEALs to
chronicle their deeds, expertise, training, capabilities, and to
provide a place where the claims of those who say they are
SEALs, or were SEALs could be verified. This is not just a bunch
of buffs who want to be associated with the SEALs by creating
the Museum. If Anderson had claimed to be in the Army's Special
Forces (Green Berets) I would have taken my queries to The
J.F.K. Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg.

What this means is that Anderson said he was a SEAL and those
who should know said that he wasn't. In light of all his other
lies, I saw no point in carrying the inquiry any farther. To me,
this proved to be just another of his tall tales that included
his seeing the crashed craft, that he was a microbiologist, and
that we could believe anything that he had to say.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 21

              Re: Coming to Blows Over How Valid Science Really

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:23:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 18:06:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Coming to Blows Over How Valid Science Really


 >From: Mike Briggs <mbriggs@ku.edu>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Coming to Blows Over How Valid Science Really Is
 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 10:41:16 -0700 (PDT)

 >Source: NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/21/arts/21KUHN.html?ex=996737276&ei=1&en=0f84a9d5
b6a7b9f8

 >Hi All,

 >Given that the UFO phenomenon seems to challenge various
 >paradigms of modern science and that there is frequent
 >discussion on the need for a more rigorously scientific approach
 >to the subject, I thought this article on Thomas Kuhn's theories
 >(and challenges to same) might interest the list. (Kuhn, as many
 >of you probably know, was also an early supporter of John Mack's
 >work.)

 >Best wishes,

 >Mike Briggs
 >mbriggs@ku.edu

 >-----

 >Coming To Blows Over How Valid Science Really Is

 >By Edward Rothstein

<snip>

Well - this is certainly what I read UpDates for. My thanks to
Mr. Briggs and Mr. Flynn for bringing this guy to my attention.

It seems on the face of it that he may provide learned and
reference providing citations on the life and times of your
garden variety skeptibunky, care and feeding of same, and a
wealth of stucture for the paradigm shift we anticpate with all
sorts of emotions.

And I'd just as soon get that dentist's office visit behind me.
Besides, I'd bet it's more a visit to a combination of
Disneyland, the Smithsonian, and the Jeff Rense site, even if
there _are_ a few drills.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

~~~~
EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros URL.
http://www.alienview.net


JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention
he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see
from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by
the scurrilous.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                 Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft?

From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 20:34:12 +0200 (MEST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 18:10:24 -0400
Subject: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft?


Can anyone identify what aircraft this is?

http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/ufo/23triangle.jpg

I'm posting on this List, as it looks like a small model of the
TR-3B:

It is from a real newspaper article, taken from the German movie
'23' and dates from the 1980s.

--
    Holger Isenberg
    H.Isenberg@ping.de
    http://mars-news.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 >
   Jul > Jul 21

               Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:46:29 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 18:12:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers


 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:39:25 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:09:29 -0700

 >>>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
 >>>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:05:37 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >><snip>

 >>For a good laugh about aliens and nanotechnology:

 >>http://www.aliendestiny.com/PageMexicoCity/RodolfoLinkAnalysis.htm

 >Hello Royce:

 >I just don't get it at all. Is there some special significance
 >to the "link artifact" that I missed? Did somebody snatch it out
 >of a UFO or whatever?

 >I've been getting home late recently and missed some Art Bell
 >radio shows.

Hi Larry,

Actually, this so-called link artifact was supposed to have been
found by UFO fraud Jonathan Reed when he wrapped up the dead
alien he killed, took it home and threw it in a freezer.  The
website that the link goes to is ran by one of his faithful
devotees who is alleging that they have evidence validating the
case, which they don't. http://www.ufowatchdog.com/analysis.html

However, these guys are silly enough to push this scam so far
that Bob Brown has them lined up for the UFO Congress' summer
sessions...just like a circus, the more bizarre the attraction
the more tickets you sell to the show...


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 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Carey

From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 21:13:50 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:50:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Carey


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:25:15 -0300

 >>From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:17:47 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>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

To Stan and List:

 >>>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 [Anderson] passed a
 >>>polygraph examination.

 >>I cannot believe that you are running Gerald Anderson up the
 >>flagpole again. Some of us, fortunately, still remember. If you
 >>recall, we exposed him as a hoaxer almost a decade ago. As a
 >>result, you and Don Berliner were forced to issue a mea culpa
 >>concerning the veracity of Anderson. It saddens me to see you
 >>trying on this old shoe again. Must we go through the entire
 >>litany of Anderson's fabrications once again?

 >Maybe we should, and replace myths with facts.

"Myths" vs "Facts"? Can you help me out here, Stan?

 >Yes he changed a phone bill and has admitted it. He was
 >indeed justifiably angry at the demonizing of him that was being
 >done. That doesn't justify the changing.

Let's see if I have this right. You are now invoking the, 'The
Devil made him do it.' argument to cover for Gerald's
fabrication of the phone bills? He was angry at us for checking
into his claims, so he went out and hoked-up some documents as
an outlet for his anger. Is that about it? Makes sense to me.

 >As I recall you did an article demonizing him in IUR noting he
 >was a poor high school student but not noting his GED and
 >many subsequent college courses.

My 8-10,000-word article in the IUR was mostly about New Mexico
archaeology and my search for Dr. Buskirk. The "demonizing"of
Gerald you talk about must be my inclusion of his school record
at Albuquerque High, which I just reported word-for-word as
Buskirk wrote it to me after reviewing Gerald's transcript [this
was prior to Gerald's forbidding the school from responding to
inquiries about him]:

"Gerald Francis Anderson was born 1 October 1941... October
1957, he enrolled at Albuquerque High, stayed a little over a
year, then checked out... There is no record of his transcript
being sent elsewhere, so apparently he was a dropout... His
Grade Point Average in Albuquerque was 1.1... he was enrolled
for a semester of Anthropology ..." [taught by Dr. Buskirk].

At the time of this article [Nov/Dec, 1991], Buskirk had no
personal recollection of Gerald at all beyond the high school
transcript [he did later, however]. Based upon the information
provided by Dr. Buskirk, I characterized what we knew of
Gerald's academic background as that of a "forgettable high
school dropout". I then presented a rundown of what we knew of
Gerald's work-history which was curious to say the least. If
this constitutes "demonizing", I stand convicted, but these
facts - not myths - should have been seen as red, warning flags
by you, not "throwaways" because you liked his story.

 >You and others claimed he was in Buskirk's class. No
 >support for that from Larry Henning, with whom I spoke
 >yet again yesterday. Nor from other students with whom
 >I spoke who were in the class and didn't recognize Gerald
 >from his yearbook picture.

Good old Larry Henning. Would a jury place more weight on his
memory or on an official school transcript? You know the answer,
and its release will settle this argument once and for all. But,
as you are aware, Gerald has forbidden its release. We believe
it will show him as in fact taking Buskirk's Anthropology class
- not the French class on the photocopy he sent you. The
reasonable conclusion to be drawn here - which you cannot do -
is that the release of Gerald's high school transcript will
prove us correct, and you and Gerald wrong [which will mean yet
another forged document].

 >People have claimed he wasn't in the Seals, apparently because
 >some guy told Kevin he didn't recall him.. Real evidence that.
 >It is claimed he faked the uncle's diary. Basis?? I had tests
 >done. The ink predated Roswell noise.

I don't know about the Seals, but his former wife did tell me
that he had been a cook in the Navy. Perhaps, that was before he
became a Seal. Having a look at his official military records
would clear that up, however. Have you looked at them? And I
don't mean records that have been provided to you by Gerald.

Uncle Ted's diary? You didn't know it was a "copy" until a
"moment of truth" for Gerald when he knew the jig was up. Faced
with the bad news [for him] that the "diary" could not have been
written in 1947 since the ink used in writing it did not exist
until 1974, Gerald came up with the fantastic "explanation" that
it must be "one of the copies" apparently written out in
long-hand, instead of - in the age of the ubiquitous photocopy
machine - being photocopied [making it yet another potentially
forged document]. Makes sense to me.

 >>>Ace investigator Vic Golubic dug out other Plains area
 >>>testimony.

To which I responded:

 >>On a recent research trip to NM with Don Schmitt, after spending
 >>several days in the Plains region attempting obtain from local
 >>ranchers information about a possible 1947 UFO crash there, we
 >>stopped in a restaurant in Datil or Magdalena [I can't remember
 >>which] for dinner. During our discussion, a woman came in and
 >>overheard our conversation. She came over to our table and
 >>started to tell us about how she had escourted this young fellow
 >>all over the place a few years ago in a search for anyone who
 >>might know something, anything  about an alleged 1947 UFO
 >>crash on the Plains. I asked her if his name was Ace Investigator
 >>Vic Golubic, and she said that it was. "How many witnesses did you
 >>and Ace find?", I asked her. "None", was her disappointed reply.
 >>"Did you and Ace find out ANYTHING useful?", I then asked. "No.
 >>Nothing." The rib-eye steak was worth the price, however.

 >Perhaps you might enquire as to how many trips Vic made and how
 >many people Vic spoke to and how few of those conversations
 >(well under 10%) the lady was present for? He spoke to over 150
 >people and has quite an oral history for the area.  He offered
 >to share it with you for your book. Guess you forgot that.

I will check it out next time I am in the Datil area. Apparently
the woman, who lives in the area and has some knowledge of the
case, has somehow managed to miss all the people who know
something about it. Makes sense to me.

Regarding Vic's "offer". Get it right, Stan. He made no offer to
me. Since I could not get any names from him over the phone, I
urged him to publish something regarding the results of his
investigations so that we all could take a look at them and go
from there. His response was that he would prefer to be
interviewed for books in general - not MY book in particular -
rather than publish something himself. We left it that he would
try find the names that he could not remember during our
conversation and send them to me. That was a few years ago. The
names never came.

 >When I mention names they get totally ignored or demonized.
 >How about Johnny Foard? How about Colonel Leed? How about
 >Harold Baca? Vern and Jean Maltais? Robert Drake? How about
 >JG? I presume they don't count because they say what you don't
 >want to hear. Tough luck.

I don't recall "JG" or Johnny Foard. Perhaps you can enlighten
us all. The other, except for Drake, all repeat the Barney
Barnett story. As for Drake's long, lost, cowboy-without-a-name
story, isn't that the same type of "witness" that you have been
beating Kevin Randle over the head with for years? I refer to
Kevin's "anonymous archaeologist" who allegerdly called him in
1990 and told him of a crash site near Roswell. The only
difference is that Kevin's alleged witness was a first-hand
witness, while yours, via Drake, is third- hand [you also liked
Drake's story because it spoke of the Plains, but didn't like
Anonymous Archaeologist's because it didn't].

 >I am glad to hear you were out in the Plains.

You should be there too, trying to find out the truth re
Barnett's and Anderson's stories. That is what we are doing.
That you are not, leads to the suspicion that you don't want to
look because you might find answers you won't like. But you
probably already know that.

 >Selective choice of data and demonization are hardly scientific
 >tools.

Ahhh, the old refrain. Reminds me of the time your erstwhile
ally in the Anderson affair, John Carpenter, lectured us about
the practice of "good science" which he, of course, was a
practicioner of, and we, by default, were not. After his
lecture, as you will recall, Carpenter finally felt compelled to
issue a public notice of non- support for Gerald Ander-son's
claims. If you recall, you and Don Berliner did the same. Why
did you do that?


Tom Carey








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 22

              Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? -

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 22:30:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:53:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? -


 >From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 20:34:12 +0200 (MEST)
 >Subject: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft?


 >Can anyone identify what aircraft this is?

 >http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/ufo/23triangle.jpg

 >I'm posting on this List, as it looks like a small model of the
 >TR-3B:

 >It is from a real newspaper article, taken from the German movie
 >'23' and dates from the 1980s.

 >--
 >    Holger Isenberg

Holger, howcome the aircraft casts a shadow and none of the
figures around it do?

Looks like one of those Photoshop moments to me.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 22

               Cydonian Imperative: 07-22-01 - Unusual "Cells"

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 22:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:55:18 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 07-22-01 - Unusual "Cells"


The Cydonian Imperative
7-22-01

Unusual "Cells" Discovered on Mars

Related links:

http://www.anomalous-images.com/mgs/northruins.html

[image]

Large rectilinear formations discovered by Steve
Wingate.

Steve Wingate, proprietor of the consistently well-done Web
resource Anomalous Images, has discovered an interesting
grouping of bright rectangular "cells" on the Martian surface.
As with the complex "Grid" discussed on the previous page,
Wingate's formation appears to be either some sort of ruined
infrastructure or a result of surface fracturing, perhaps due to
faulting or unknown stress on the Martian crust. The high albedo
of the lines is unusual, and recalls certain monuments on Earth,
such as the Nazca glyphs in Peru.

Also present is a grouping of small "blisters" (see image) that
present another level of anomaly, as they're morphologically
distinct and unlikely to be caused by the same mechanism that
produced the "cells." It's entirely possible that the cells are
the result of natural forces. But perhaps it wouldn't hurt to
look closer, just in case.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                     Sighting Report Enterprise, Alabama

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 05:27:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:59:12 -0400
Subject: Sighting Report Enterprise, Alabama


Honored Listfolk and Mr. Flynn

I mean - what credence can you put in a guy who sees UFOs... but
I had an interesting sighting this morning you might find a
worthy tid-bit over your turkey bacon biscuit and cup o' Jo.

At 04:05 this morning (07-22-01), three of those damn 'lights'
(NLs or detached stars I'm always writing about) flew over at a
pretty good clip (they traversed four inches held at arm's
length in six seconds). They were locked together in a formation
that rotated clockwise at a rate of about a degree every seven
seconds or so, barely but plainly perceptible. I could still see
starfield between them so it was not one solid craft unless it
affected some kind of transparency... They were flying due North
directly over Enterprise, Alabama (that place that fires
teachers because they are interested in UFOs, you recall).

I just got back from the annual visit out to see my Mother... I
should mention that the NLs seen on this visit exceeded last
year's count by at least 50% (I wasn't going to say a _word_
about it, but this morning's sighting was so damned weird!) I
had numerous sightings out there (Anderson California) _every_
morning that did not have cloud cover... 28 days or so...

Which reminds me. Can someone on this revered List give me an
idea just how many satellites one should be able to see when one
looks into the sky in the early morning (assuming good vision
and clear skies)? In over an hour on the 18th I must have seen
about fifteen of the fakakta things zipping to all points of the
compass and at dissimilar relative speeds... some of them _must_
have been satellites, huh?

But I've a program that is supposed to give the user the ability
to predict and observe them from an entered lat/long, and that
program goes _days_ between sighting potentials... Well - back
to the skies...

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 >
   Jul > Jul 22

              Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 22 Jul 2001 08:05:52 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:02:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamilton


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:46:29 -0700

 >>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:39:25 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:09:29 -0700

<snip>

 >>>For a good laugh about aliens and nanotechnology:

 >>>http://www.aliendestiny.com/PageMexicoCity/RodolfoLinkAnalysis.htm

 >>I just don't get it at all. Is there some special significance
 >>to the "link artifact" that I missed? Did somebody snatch it out
 >>of a UFO or whatever?

 >>I've been getting home late recently and missed some Art Bell
 >>radio shows.

 >Actually, this so-called link artifact was supposed to have been
 >found by UFO fraud Jonathan Reed when he wrapped up the dead
 >alien he killed, took it home and threw it in a freezer. The
 >website that the link goes to is ran by one of his faithful
 >devotees who is alleging that they have evidence validating the
 >case, which they don't. http://www.ufowatchdog.com/analysis.html

 >However, these guys are silly enough to push this scam so far
 >that Bob Brown has them lined up for the UFO Congress' summer
 >sessions...just like a circus, the more bizarre the attraction
 >the more tickets you sell to the show...

Just returned from the excellent MUFON Symposium 2001. Pointed
out to me were 2 men who, investigating Reed, are supporting his
tall tale, with their findings. To top it off Jaime Mauson
including video of the "Link" artifact and is leaning toward
supporting Reed. Most of the audience were fascinated, but some
were upset by this.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 22

             Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:07:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:06:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article - Aldrich


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article
 >Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:04:30 +0000

 >>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:46:13 -0400
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article

<snip>

 >List,

 >Yes, pay attention to Nick and others who provide knowledgable
 >and well-informed critiques (including those by Kevin Randle on
 >the Roswell case).

 >Nick (and I) may not be 'right' or have the full story in any
 >particular instance, but our main message is: Stop accepting at
 >face value what people say merely because it is something you
 >would like to believe is true.

 >Self-deception is rife in the UFO field.

 >Some of these people are flat lying, or self-deluded in some
 >way. They simply could not have experienced what they claim.

 >All such claims need to be subjected to Peer Review
 >(knowledgable critique) before being accepted as 'gospel'.


Dick,

As I remember there was much more about Carl Wolfe's story than
detailed by Michel. It seems that I dealt with it in the past,
but can't recall exactly where.

The main thing you can say about 'insider' witnesses in general
is that their stories are seldom supported by 'checkable' facts.
But the stories themselves are compelling to people who are
seeking a short cut to the end of the UFO mystery.

I participated in one interview in which the witness was most
convincing, the story was compelling. The witness had two major
personal set back in his life involving government actions. So
as we taped our interview in the pleasant early summer time
surroundings of the eastern mountains, I said to myself, "this
guy has every reason, to make up a story which puts the
government in an unfavorable light." However, talking to his
former team mates and others who were involved and unknown to
him, another, different picture appeared. There were conflicting
details and things seen from different vantage points, but the
story hangs together amazing well. There is official
documentation. Here is something that is not smoke, but solid,
it is not a like mirage, the closer you get to the facts, the
more tale seems to evaporate. No, the more that comes out in
this testimony, the better the story looks. However, such
investigations take time, effort and money. It doesn't just
involving sitting someone in front of a camera and having him
spin a yarn for you.

This is the way to get material that Congress can sink their
teeth into, not someone telling you that there are 57 varieties
of aliens watching the earth. (Must have had a Henz ketsup
bottle in front of him.) Teaming of a teller of such completely
unsupported tales with Robert Salas makes sure that Salas' story
never gets out and is never examined by the right people. But
maybe that was the object of the exercise in the first place!


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 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                 Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article -

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 22 Jul 2001 08:17:53 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:11:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article -


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article
 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:54:05 -0400

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article
 >>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:04:30 +0000

 >>>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:46:13 -0400
 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Deschamp's Disclosure Project Article

 >>List,

 >>Yes, pay attention to Nick and others who provide knowledgable
 >>and well-informed critiques (including those by Kevin Randle on
 >>the Roswell case).

 >>Nick (and I) may not be 'right' or have the full story in any
 >>particular instance, but our main message is: Stop accepting at
 >>face value what people say merely because it is something you
 >>would like to believe is true.

 >>Self-deception is rife in the UFO field.

 >>Some of these people are flat lying, or self-deluded in some
 >>way. They simply could not have experienced what they claim.

 >>All such claims need to be subjected to Peer Review
 >>(knowledgable critique) before being accepted as 'gospel'.

 >I wrote this article in order for people to be aware that this
 >press conference took place and show that some government and
 >military witnesses are willing to come forward and reveal what
 >they know... if given the opportunity... and protection from
 >prosecution.

 >I have had 18 sightings and all I have to show for them are
 >sketches and written accounts. Apparently, that is not good
 >enough for anyone.

 >But these folks... and many more like them...have credentials
 >and can prove that they were working in areas where they
 >potentially came across UFO information.

 >I am leaning towards giving these participants the benefit of
 >the doubt a lot more than to Dr. Greer, knowing full well his
 >personal approach to UFOs... and the underhanded manoeuvers he
 >may have performed in the past regarding other people's work.

 >If the witnesses did misrepresent themselves, and this thing is
 >a bust.. then I challenge anyone to take over the reins, get a
 >hold of more reliable eyewitnesses, and do one better. In any
 >case, a press conference of this type was long overdue.

 >This is not an American "thing". We owe it to the whole planet
 >to push the issue of Disclosure... at all cost. This UFO secrecy
 >has lasted way too long.

Thanks Michael,

I had a long talk with Greer last night and one of his witnesses
who did similar work to what I did in the military, had the same
level of clearance, and could talk shop with me. I have
interviewed and have on file my record of similar witnesses and
can tell you there authentic witnesses. Mostly these have been
less vocal in the past than those who have sought the spotlight
and have been shot down by investigators.

There has been a continuing secret UFO program for over 50 years
now, but there are still researchers arguing over Pelicans and
Balloons and Planet Venus. What a waste of time! Once a few UFO
events are validated, we should move on to far mor significant
subjects and leave the kindergarden boys to play in their
sandbox.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                   Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 22 Jul 2001 08:28:38 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:15:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees


 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 06:57:05 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees

 >>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Relationship?
 >>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:26:29 -0700

 >>>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:48:53 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>>Subject: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Relationship?

 >>>To All:

 >>>In light of the reports by MILABs or 'Military Abductees',' I
 >>>thought the following article might be of interest.

 >>>Also relating to this article are the 'messages' that some
 >>>abductees receive - could they be from ETs or are they from these
 >>>other 'guys in the sky'?

 >>>Thanks to Marc Davenport for bringing this article to my
 >>>attention.

 >>>"Pravda.RU John Fleming: The Shocking Menace of Satellite
 >>>Surveillance."

 >>>The full article can be read at:

 >>>http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/07/14/10131.html

 >>This is pretty wild stuff, to do some of the things described in
 >>the article you'd have to have a very large and "hot" nuclear
 >>reactor _in_orbit_. Whoever Mr. Fleming is he should lay off the
 >>cheap Vodka. Oh, also the Russians aren't slouches when it
 >>comes to satlellite technology.

 >>I'm not saying the MILAB concept doesn't have merit, but
 >>to get satellites to do some of the things that border on
 >>'Star Trek' stuff or worse, you'd have to have a ship the
 >>size (at our current tech level) of the USS Enterprise -
 >>the aircraft carrier I mean. Also a way around several
 >>layers of Physical, Chemical, Atmospheric - for that matter
 >>Quantum Physical Laws - to do this stuff.

 >Hello GT:

 >I read the article for about 12 seconds, and then simply
 >stopped. Maybe its just the Dos Equis in me, but my BS alarm
 >deafened me halfway thru the very first paragraph!

 >Pravda.RU: Main: More in detail
 >19:16 2001-07-14
 >JOHN FLEMING: THE SHOCKING MENACE OF SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE FULL
 >VERSION OF THE ARTICLE

 >"Unknown to most of the world, satellites can perform
 >astonishing and often menacing feats..."

 >True

 >"A spy satellite can monitor a person�s every movement, even
 >when the 'target' is indoors or deep in the interior of a
 >building or traveling rapidly down the highway in a car, in any
 >kind of weather (cloudy, rainy, stormy).

 >I have certain reservations about that.....

 >"There is no place to hide on the face of the earth. It takes
 >just three satellites to blanket the world with detection
 >capacity. Besides tracking a person�s every action and relaying
 >the data to a computer screen on earth, amazing powers of
 >satellites include reading a person�s mind....."

 >Oh now I see. Three sats in orbit can read my mind, or anyone
 >else's. Hey look guys, I knew this special French girl for
 >decades. I defy any psychic on Earth to read her mind. Is John
 >Fleming, or anyone else printed in Pravda (Russian for "truth")
 >trying to tell me that High Geek in Space can do that?

 >Maybe its the beer again, but this sounds like the Weekly World
 >Fleming, (I mean Pravda, no I mean News.)

 >I am sure there are real surprises in spy-sat technology, some
 >of which might not become public for decades.

 >But! Reading Francoise' intriguing mind? Not even the battleship
 >Enterprise can do that. Her own mother never could. Sorry
 >Pravda-Fleming, no way.


Larry, et al,

I agree with your assessment of this article over-all, however
mind-reading computers are not fiction.

I researched this well over 20 years ago when it was a more open
subject and was alarmed to discover that using EEGs and
special-purpose computers that 80% accuracy was achieved. Then a
Dr. Zimmerman developed a sensitive transistor amplifier around
1980 that could amplify magnetic emanations from brain waves
over one billion times and detect these one foot away from the
cranium.

With further improvements I would imagine that brain-wave
monitors could theoretically be placed in another room and
covert surveillance could be effected, and even said that maybe
someday that they could put these units in satellites! However,
I now doubt that it ever went this far unless I could find
something in the technical literature-right!

I found material on the mind-reading computers in the L.A.
Times, ComputerWorld and other publications. Anyone for a little
dose of paranoia?

BTW, the neurocybernetic loop was two-way. They found they could
induce brain-wave patterns and assurred journalists that
scientific ethics would prevent any self-respecting scientist
from experimenting with this mode. Hope those CIA guys are
listening.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 22

               Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:03:20 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:17:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hatch


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:46:29 -0700

 >>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:39:25 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:09:29 -0700


 >>>For a good laugh about aliens and nanotechnology:

 >>>http://www.aliendestiny.com/PageMexicoCity/RodolfoLinkAnalysis.htm

 >>Hello Royce:

 >>I just don't get it at all. Is there some special significance
 >>to the "link artifact" that I missed? Did somebody snatch it out
 >>of a UFO or whatever?

 >>I've been getting home late recently and missed some Art Bell
 >>radio shows.

 >Hi Larry,

 >Actually, this so-called link artifact was supposed to have been
 >found by UFO fraud Jonathan Reed when he wrapped up the dead
 >alien he killed, took it home and threw it in a freezer.  The
 >website that the link goes to is ran by one of his faithful
 >devotees who is alleging that they have evidence validating the
 >case, which they don't. http://www.ufowatchdog.com/analysis.html

 >However, these guys are silly enough to push this scam so far
 >that Bob Brown has them lined up for the UFO Congress' summer
 >sessions...just like a circus, the more bizarre the attraction
 >the more tickets you sell to the show...

Thanks Royce!

That explains everything.

- 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 >
   Jul > Jul 22

              The Times - Siberia Blast Was 'Volcanic Blowout'

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:29:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:29:29 -0400
Subject: The Times - Siberia Blast Was 'Volcanic Blowout'



From: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

Source: The Times - London

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2001251300,00.html

Saturday July 21 2001

Siberia Blast Was 'Volcanic Blowout'

by

Giles Whittell - In Moscow


The cause of a massive explosion over central Siberia that has
remained one of the great mysteries of modern science, was a
'volcanic blowout' of ten million tonnes of natural gas, a noted
German physicist has claimed.

The eruption over the Tunguska plateau one summer morning 93
years ago has long been explained as the impact of the biggest
meteorite to hit Earth since prehistoric times. It scorched
nearly 1,000 sq miles of forest, incinerated entire colonies of
reindeer and sent elderly men 200 miles away running for the
bathhouse to be clean for their impending deaths.

For the past half-century the 'Tunguska event' has been
explained as an incoming meteorite or comet exploding in the
upper atmosphere with the force of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs.
However, it left no cosmic debris or crater, forcing even
experts to admit that its cause was one of the great mysteries
of modern science.

That may be about to change: 17 factors, including the patterns
of tectonic faults and fallen trees in the area, suggest that
the explosion had nothing to do with outer space, but was caused
by gas forced upwards from the planet�s molten core, Wolfgang
Kundt, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Bonn,
writes in August�s issue of the journal Current Science.

The 'outgassing' may also have created, in a few earth-shaking
minutes, a geological structure close to the surface of the
Earth known as a kimberlite after the legendery diamond reserves
found in the 19th century near the South African town of
Kimberley, Professor Kundt writes.

"If they find that, as is indicated, it would turn Siberia into
a rich industrial country," he told The Times, dismissing the
comet and meteorite theories as pseudo-science. "If good
physicists had been involved from the start this problem would
never have occurred,� he said. 'As it was (the early study of
the Tunguska phenomenon) was left to geophysicists and
geologists with no knowledge of extraterrestial bodies."

The first outsider to visit Tunguska was neither a physicist nor
a geophysicist, but a goldsmith named Suzdalev, who arrived in
1910 and swore the locals to silence about what he found. They
obeyed, and it is unknown whether he left with a fortune in
diamonds or nothing at all.

The next expedition was in 1927, when Leonid Kulik, a Russian
geologist, observed a stunning radial pattern of thousands of trees
felled by the blast, their blackened trunks pointing to an epicentre
in the middle of a 250 million year-old volcanic crater at the
junction of seismic faultlines.

Witness accounts from 1908, throughout the region were plentiful,
but contradictory. They spoke of fireballs, twin columns of flame
and trails of fire from several directions. There were also reports
of eerie lights in the night sky before and after June 30, strong
enough to read a newspaper by and visible as far away as
Western Europe.

Amateurs have explained these accounts with theories about black
holes, 'anti- matter bullets' and, most popular of all, an
exploding spaceship that was the subject of a best-selling
Soviet book, Guest From Space.

Two costly expeditions by the University of Bologna since the
Soviet collapse have focused on meteorites. They claim to have
found microscopic traces of space dust in spruce resin to
support the view that the blast was caused by a stony meteor
200ft wide approaching at a 45-degree angle and exploding four
miles above the Earth. However, such a meteorite cannot account
for 12 conical holes in the ground near the epicentre and would
have felled the trees in a parallel pattern, Professor Kundt
insists.

Andrei Olkhovatov, a Russian scientist who supports many of his
findings, says that a meteor 200ft across would have left at
least 100,000 tonnes of debris along its approach path. "But the
question arises, where are the remnants?" he asked. "Nowhere,
nothing after decades of detailed research."


Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                        A Temporary Brain Disturbance

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:36:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:36:55 -0400
Subject: A Temporary Brain Disturbance



From: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

Source: *Spark-Online Version 22.0

http://www.spark-online.com/issue22/kavanagh.html

A Temporary Brain Disturbance

by Gail Kavanagh

According to Canadian scientist Michael Persinger, believing you
have been abducted by aliens or found God is the result of a
"temporary brain disturbance".

Persinger has been tinkering with the heads of volunteers,
disturbing the electrical activity in the grey matter with
magnetic fields.

The volunteers feel as if they have been poked and prodded by
alien probes, or they report intense emotional reactions similar
to religious ecstacy. Since this phenomena can obviously occur
without magnetic interference from mad Canadian scientists, this
could explain reports of such abductions. Of course, the brain
is mysterious territory. It fills a cavity in our skulls and for
the most part makes sure that we know left from right, up from
down, and fully comprehend gravity so we don't fall off really
tall buildings.

We rely on our brains for a lot of stuff�for being able to see
and hear and move and talk and even for being alive. Once the
brain shuts down, even a fully functioning heart and other offal
is not regarded as evidence of life as we know it.

Our brains formed the word as well as the concept of paranoia.
Just because it isn't there, doesn't mean it isn't out to get
you. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to
see it, can it still flatten your house? But Persinger has taken
paranoia to a whole new level. Forget the CIA, the FBI and all
those other initials, it's our damn brains we can't trust. Our
brains are stuffing us around all over the place. They lie to
us, convince us we have been probed by grey guys with radar dish
eyes, have spoken to God, met Elvis in the frozen food aisle of
the local supermarket, or fallen in love.

That's the dirtiest brain trick of all. If intense feelings are
the result of a temporary brain disturbance, then falling in
love is quite simply a psychotic disorder.

We are already at the mercy of our hormones and our biological
clocks in the mating game as we are prodded into perpetuating
the species. But when the object of desire is not chosen for
breeding purposes, what then are our sneaky brains up to?

The line between being a "star crossed lover" and a psychotic
stalker is already pretty thin. Persinger's experiments have
placed the ardent pursuit of love into the category of a short
circuit.

Persinger's experiments could undermine thousands of years of
silly love songs. How typical of a man to prove emotions are
nothing more than TBDs just as we are getting men to wake up to
their feminine sides.

It is all very bad news for us sensitive, emotional, feeling
souls.

Yesterday I cried, today I hugged someone and said "I love you"
and it is all the result of a TBD. I am a crazy mess with a
brain sparking like a live wire in a mud puddle.

I haven't been abducted by aliens yet, but it's only a matter of
time before my brain convinces me I have.

Bring it on, Brain, I'm ready for you.

Copyright � 2001 Gail Kavanagh. All Rights Reserved.

Gail Kavanagh suffers a temporary brain disturbance over
cowboys, chocolate and Jet Li.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 22

              Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? -

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:34:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:42:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? -


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft?
 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 22:30:44 -0500

 >>From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 20:34:12 +0200 (MEST)
 >>Subject: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft?

 >>Can anyone identify what aircraft this is?

 >>http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/ufo/23triangle.jpg

 >>I'm posting on this List, as it looks like a small model of the
 >>TR-3B:

 >>It is from a real newspaper article, taken from the German movie
 >>'23' and dates from the 1980s.

 >>--
 >>Holger Isenberg

 >Holger, howcome the aircraft casts a shadow and none of the
 >figures around it do?

 >Looks like one of those Photoshop moments to me.

Dennis,

You win a cookie.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 23

              Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? -

From: Filips Baumanis <human@f11.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:47:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:40:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? -


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft?
 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 22:30:44 -0500

 >>From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 20:34:12 +0200 (MEST)
 >>Subject: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft?

 >>Can anyone identify what aircraft this is?

 >>http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/ufo/23triangle.jpg

 >>I'm posting on this List, as it looks like a small model of the
 >>TR-3B:

 >>It is from a real newspaper article, taken from the German movie
 >>'23' and dates from the 1980s.

 >>--
 >>Holger Isenberg

 >Holger, howcome the aircraft casts a shadow and none of the
 >figures around it do?

 >Looks like one of those Photoshop moments to me.


There are a couple of other images in that directory at:

http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/ufo/


of this aircraft...

http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/ufo/23triangle_discover.jpg

looks the clearest...

Looking at the light in that, i have to say that it's a drawing... or
_really_ good photoshop work (for that time (looks like feb 1986))

  - the light is just too perfectly overhead to be convincing...


Just a penny








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 23

               Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 21:14:40 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:43:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Hatch

 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Date: 22 Jul 2001 08:28:38 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees

 >>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 06:57:05 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees

 >>>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Relationship?
 >>>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:26:29 -0700

 >>>>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:48:53 -0400
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>>>Subject: Satellites, Monitoring & Abductees - Relationship?

 >>>>To All:

 >>>>In light of the reports by MILABs or 'Military Abductees',' I
 >>>>thought the following article might be of interest.

<snip>

 >>>>The full article can be read at:

 >>>>http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/07/14/10131.html

 >>>I'm not saying the MILAB concept doesn't have merit, but
 >>>to get satellites to do some of the things that border on
 >>>'Star Trek' stuff or worse, you'd have to have a ship the
 >>>size (at our current tech level) of the USS Enterprise -
 >>>the aircraft carrier I mean. Also a way around several
 >>>layers of Physical, Chemical, Atmospheric - for that matter
 >>>Quantum Physical Laws - to do this stuff.

 >>Hello GT:

 >>I read the article for about 12 seconds, and then simply
 >>stopped. Maybe its just the Dos Equis in me, but my BS alarm
 >>deafened me halfway thru the very first paragraph!

 >>Pravda.RU: Main: More in detail
 >>19:16 2001-07-14
 >>JOHN FLEMING: THE SHOCKING MENACE OF SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE FULL
 >>VERSION OF THE ARTICLE

<snip>

 >>"There is no place to hide on the face of the earth. It takes
 >>just three satellites to blanket the world with detection
 >>capacity. Besides tracking a person�s every action and relaying
 >>the data to a computer screen on earth, amazing powers of
 >>satellites include reading a person�s mind....."
 >
 >>Oh now I see. Three sats in orbit can read my mind, or anyone
 >>else's. Hey look guys, I knew this special French girl for
 >>decades. I defy any psychic on Earth to read her mind. Is John
 >>Fleming, or anyone else printed in Pravda (Russian for "truth")
 >>trying to tell me that High Geek in Space can do that?

<snip>

 >Larry, et al,

 >I agree with your assessment of this article over-all, however
 >mind-reading computers are not fiction.

 >I researched this well over 20 years ago when it was a more open
 >subject and was alarmed to discover that using EEGs and
 >special-purpose computers that 80% accuracy was achieved. Then a
 >Dr. Zimmerman developed a sensitive transistor amplifier around
 >1980 that could amplify magnetic emanations from brain waves
 >over one billion times and detect these one foot away from the
 >cranium.

 >With further improvements I would imagine that brain-wave
 >monitors could theoretically be placed in another room and
 >covert surveillance could be effected, and even said that maybe
 >someday that they could put these units in satellites! However,
 >I now doubt that it ever went this far unless I could find
 >something in the technical literature-right!

 >I found material on the mind-reading computers in the L.A.
 >Times, ComputerWorld and other publications. Anyone for a little
 >dose of paranoia?

 >BTW, the neurocybernetic loop was two-way. They found they could
 >induce brain-wave patterns and assurred journalists that
 >scientific ethics would prevent any self-respecting scientist
 >from experimenting with this mode. Hope those CIA guys are
 >listening.


Hello Bill & GT:

I would guess that there are or were any number of mind-reading
experiments, with and without computers, covert and otherwise.

My main objection is the signal to noise ratio. I once sent
around a photo of some poor chimpanzee whose brain was wired to
an array of probes, all neatly bundled into a DB-25 connector
(so it appeared... something like the parallel printer port on a
PC). Poor critter looked confused and unhappy.

Somewhat less invasive might be a special helmet designed to
capture the weak-weak electrical signals the brain passes back
and forth, very carefully shielded from exterior noise (auto
ignitions etc.).

Even so, and assuming such static (NOT radio) signals can
somehow penetrate skull and scalp, full of wet salty aqueous
fluids, there are other little problems... filtering and
interpretation not the least of them.

Suppose the chimp is thinking " Simba want banana.," at the same
time his back starts itching, distracting sights and sounds
present themselves, he wiggles his toes .. whatever. All of this
and more cause brain activity, jillions of synapse firings, and
none specially tagged to the banana, the phone ringing or a
family resemblance to some noted politician on the front page of
a newspaper nearby.

Now, take the helmet away. Move all the apparatus to the next
room, so the subject sees nothing out of the ordinary. I really
have my doubts.

Now move the whole shebang into a satellite, at geostationary
altitudes so the subject doesn't whiz by too fast. So here is
this satellite, trying to tune in on the thoughts of one single
person, in a city with millions of others, all thinking about
their own problems, their own back itches, banana hunger,
arguments and so on.

The article would have us believe that a satellite can zoom
right in on the subject, who may have taken the subway, caught a
ride to the other side of town...

It would be much easier to drop a special olive in the subject's
martini, or to tap his phone, his email .. lots of low budget
stuff. I suspect this mythical mind-reading satellite would need
an antenna the size of the solar system, and oh yes... there
goes another lightning storm in Minnesota. Drat! Blew the mind
reading pre-amplifier chip right out of its socket.



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 >
   Jul > Jul 23

                  Re: Sighting Report Enterprise, Alabama -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:24:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:45:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Sighting Report Enterprise, Alabama -


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Sighting Report Enterprise, Alabama
 >Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 05:27:51 -0500


 >Honored Listfolk and Mr. Flynn

 >I mean - what credence can you put in a guy who sees UFOs... but
 >I had an interesting sighting this morning you might find a
 >worthy tid-bit over your turkey bacon biscuit and cup o' Jo.

 >At 04:05 this morning (07-22-01), three of those damn 'lights'
 >(NLs or detached stars I'm always writing about) flew over at a
 >pretty good clip (they traversed four inches held at arm's
 >length in six seconds). They were locked together in a formation
 >that rotated clockwise at a rate of about a degree every seven
 >seconds or so, barely but plainly perceptible. I could still see
 >starfield between them so it was not one solid craft unless it
 >affected some kind of transparency... They were flying due North
 >directly over Enterprise, Alabama (that place that fires
 >teachers because they are interested in UFOs, you recall).

 >I just got back from the annual visit out to see my Mother... I
 >should mention that the NLs seen on this visit exceeded last
 >year's count by at least 50% (I wasn't going to say a _word_
 >about it, but this morning's sighting was so damned weird!) I
 >had numerous sightings out there (Anderson California) _every_
 >morning that did not have cloud cover... 28 days or so...

 >Which reminds me. Can someone on this revered List give me an
 >idea just how many satellites one should be able to see when one
 >looks into the sky in the early morning (assuming good vision
 >and clear skies)? In over an hour on the 18th I must have seen
 >about fifteen of the fakakta things zipping to all points of the
 >compass and at dissimilar relative speeds... some of them _must_
 >have been satellites, huh?

 >But I've a program that is supposed to give the user the ability
 >to predict and observe them from an entered lat/long, and that
 >program goes _days_ between sighting potentials... Well - back
 >to the skies...

Dear bList, Albert, (I mean Alfred, sorry) and Errol,

I would like to respond to your post in the voice of others.
None being the ones in my head, but rather, the ones oft herd...
heard on UpDates.  Here are a few in their own voices... Ahem!

"It's a thing with your eyes. Obviously you are suffering from
some disorder of the interior of the optic nerve.  What a nerve,
wasting bandwidth on such silliness."

"Swamp gas."

"The planet Venus."

"Just a desire on your part to have your moment in lights. Lights
of your own making - up."

"Here we are, trying to have a serious discussion, and
Mortellaro barges in with some stupid and disruptive nonesense."

"Gripple."

"(burp) Grolsch!"

"Lying bastard."

These are a few of my favorite things.  Sung to the tune of
"These are a few of my favorite things."

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 >
   Jul > Jul 23

              Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:13:25 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:47:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft? -


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft?
 >Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:34:11 -0400

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft?
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 22:30:44 -0500

 >>>From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 20:34:12 +0200 (MEST)
 >>>Subject: Recognise This Triangular Stealth Aircraft?

 >>>Can anyone identify what aircraft this is?

 >>>http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/ufo/23triangle.jpg

 >>>I'm posting on this List, as it looks like a small model of the
 >>>TR-3B:

 >>>It is from a real newspaper article, taken from the German movie
 >>>'23' and dates from the 1980s.


 >>>Holger Isenberg

 >>Holger, howcome the aircraft casts a shadow and none of the
 >>figures around it do?

 >>Looks like one of those Photoshop moments to me.

 >Dennis,

 >You win a cookie.

 >Serge

Dear Serge and All, and of course, EBK;

Don't you think, Serge, that Dennis deserves more than just a
cookie? Why don't we get together and pass the hat. Maybe we can
afford two cookies. Or maybe, if Fill Class participates, we can
get him a real award. Something he really deserves. Whaddya
think?

Nah.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 23

                  Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:21:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:50:59 -0400
Subject: Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - McCoy


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >To: 02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers :; <02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers :;>
 >Date: Sunday, July 22, 2001 8:37 PM
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: A Temporary Brain Disturbance

 >From: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >Source: *Spark-Online Version 22.0

 >http://www.spark-online.com/issue22/kavanagh.html

 >A Temporary Brain Disturbance

 >by Gail Kavanagh

 >According to Canadian scientist Michael Persinger, believing you
 >have been abducted by aliens or found God is the result of a
 >"temporary brain disturbance".

 >Persinger has been tinkering with the heads of volunteers,
 >disturbing the electrical activity in the grey matter with
 >magnetic fields.

Well, how about that. You stimulate the Brain and get it all
discombobulated. This has been around for years, this fellow
must have been in need of some grant money.

 >The volunteers feel as if they have been poked and prodded by
 >alien probes, or they report intense emotional reactions similar
 >to religious ecstacy. Since this phenomena can obviously occur
 >without magnetic interference from mad Canadian scientists, this
 >could explain reports of such abductions. Of course, the brain
 >is mysterious territory. It fills a cavity in our skulls and for
 >the most part makes sure that we know left from right, up from
 >down, and fully comprehend gravity so we don't fall off really
 >tall buildings.

Having the slightist bit of doubt about a new "study'' too.

 >We rely on our brains for a lot of stuff�for being able to see
 >and hear and move and talk and even for being alive. Once the
 >brain shuts down, even a fully functioning heart and other offal
 >is not regarded as evidence of life as we know it.

Some times even the Brain shuts down-as with drowning victims
and hypothermia patients too.

 >Our brains formed the word as well as the concept of paranoia.
 >Just because it isn't there, doesn't mean it isn't out to get
 >you. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to
 >see it, can it still flatten your house? But Persinger has taken
 >paranoia to a whole new level. Forget the CIA, the FBI and all
 >those other initials, it's our damn brains we can't trust. Our
 >brains are stuffing us around all over the place. They lie to
 >us, convince us we have been probed by grey guys with radar dish
 >eyes, have spoken to God, met Elvis in the frozen food aisle of
 >the local supermarket, or fallen in love.

I believe in the God Who is There, but we don't have a regular
Tee time. Met Tammy Wynett and George Jones,not by my choice,
however.

Now about what I would call a "Brain Fart" was my first
marriage, as close to an abduction as it ever has gotten for
me-I woke up with a ring on her finger and one though my nose.

 >That's the dirtiest brain trick of all. If intense feelings are
 >the result of a temporary brain disturbance, then falling in
 >love is quite simply a psychotic disorder.

Now in my second marriage (and this one is till death do us
part) I am in love, my dear wife is too. Psychotic was my first
marrage. -Sheesh.

 >We are already at the mercy of our hormones and our biological
 >clocks in the mating game as we are prodded into perpetuating
 >the species. But when the object of desire is not chosen for
 >breeding purposes, what then are our sneaky brains up to?

Gee how about Love ?-and this is as far as I will go here, but
add the other things God, the exsistence of somthing outside
that is not explanied by merely saying you are temporarily
insane? Were the folks in New Jersy having a community
brain fart that was also recored on video-ABC no less.

Love merely a Brain Fart oh, what would the Bard of Avon have to
say? Rumi's love poems merely the fevered imaginings of demented
(if temporarily) Brain? E.B.

Browning's poems? Andy Williams crooning "Moon River" merely
homage to a "short circut", "The way we were" by Striesand
becomes the "The way our synapes fried"- Pleeze.

 >The line between being a "star crossed lover" and a psychotic
 >stalker is already pretty thin. Persinger's experiments have
 >placed the ardent pursuit of love into the category of a short
 >circuit.

Having had a life that has been more interesting than I want
sometimes, the love of a good woman is ( or man as the case may
be) more valuble than gold. Love is not a Brain Fart. I hope
that Persinger has a good marriage,however, I couldn't get away
with " Gee honey I forgot our aniversary, it was all a brain
fart, anyway!"-Right, and I hope he has a charge account at
Nordstrum's (like Mayce's et.al.).

 >Persinger's experiments could undermine thousands of years of
 >silly love songs. How typical of a man to prove emotions are
 >nothing more than TBDs just as we are getting men to wake up to
 >their feminine sides.

Great way of getting out of a reationship ain't it- sorry honey,
but you were just a Brain Fart. It does trivialize things.

 >It is all very bad news for us sensitive, emotional, feeling
 >souls.

 >Yesterday I cried, today I hugged someone and said "I love you"
 >and it is all the result of a TBD. I am a crazy mess with a
 >brain sparking like a live wire in a mud puddle.

No it just merely proves that the writer is human.

 >I haven't been abducted by aliens yet, but it's only a matter of
 >time before my brain convinces me I have.

 >Bring it on, Brain, I'm ready for you.

 >Copyright � 2001 Gail Kavanagh. All Rights Reserved.

 >Gail Kavanagh suffers a temporary brain disturbance over
 >cowboys, chocolate and Jet Li.

And I suffer from TBSD- Temproral B.S. Disturbance when
psycobabble is applied over reality, with someone trying to get
published just for the sake of publishing a paper-and it gets
press too boot.

GT McCoy


In love with my wife, and it isn't due to sticking my finger in
a light socket.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 23

               Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:38:23 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:52:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 22 Jul 2001 08:05:52 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:46:29 -0700

 >>>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:39:25 -0700
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >>>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>>>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:09:29 -0700

 ><snip>

 >>>>For a good laugh about aliens and nanotechnology:

 >>>>http://www.aliendestiny.com/PageMexicoCity/RodolfoLinkAnalysis.htm

 >>>I just don't get it at all. Is there some special significance
 >>>to the "link artifact" that I missed? Did somebody snatch it out
 >>>of a UFO or whatever?

 >>>I've been getting home late recently and missed some Art Bell
 >>>radio shows.

 >>Actually, this so-called link artifact was supposed to have been
 >>found by UFO fraud Jonathan Reed when he wrapped up the dead
 >>alien he killed, took it home and threw it in a freezer. The
 >>website that the link goes to is ran by one of his faithful
 >>devotees who is alleging that they have evidence validating the
 >>case, which they don't. http://www.ufowatchdog.com/analysis.html

 >>However, these guys are silly enough to push this scam so far
 >>that Bob Brown has them lined up for the UFO Congress' summer
 >>sessions...just like a circus, the more bizarre the attraction
 >>the more tickets you sell to the show...

 >Just returned from the excellent MUFON Symposium 2001. Pointed
 >out to me were 2 men who, investigating Reed, are supporting his
 >tall tale, with their findings. To top it off Jaime Mauson
 >including video of the "Link" artifact and is leaning toward
 >supporting Reed. Most of the audience were fascinated, but some
 >were upset by this.

Hi Bill,

Jaime Maussan is fully supporting the Reed Hoax and arranged for
many media appearance for Reed and his cohorts down in Mexico.
For anyone wanting to know more on this, and so I don't take up
a lot of Updates space, feel free to visit the following:
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/reedlinks.html

Why would MUFON would host anyone associated with this ruse?
Considering that one of the supposed doctors that claimed to
have analyzed alien blood and tissue samples isn't a doctor at
all and works as a clerk at a west Seattle gas station.  This is
a fact verified by a MUFON state section director that knows the
guy.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 23

                 Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@Konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:01:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:54:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement - Kaeser


After reviewing the publication 'Disclosure' that Dr. Steven
Greer has released, I found that Danial Sheehan's testimony
isn't included (or at least I can't seem to find it). This
surprises me, since he has become a major part of the Disclosure
Project.

It may be that he is a relatively new "witness" and hadn't been
interviewed in time for inclusion in the book, which was
obviously in production prior to the original Briefing in May.
But if anyone has insight that might shed some light on this, it
would be appreciated.


Thanks,

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 >
   Jul > Jul 23

                Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 23 Jul 2001 06:58:08 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:59:04 -0400
Subject: Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - Hamilton


On Sun, 22 July 2001, UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote:

 >From: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >Source: *Spark-Online Version 22.0

 >http://www.spark-online.com/issue22/kavanagh.html

 >A Temporary Brain Disturbance

 >by Gail Kavanagh

 >According to Canadian scientist Michael Persinger, believing you
 >have been abducted by aliens or found God is the result of a
 >"temporary brain disturbance".

 >Persinger has been tinkering with the heads of volunteers,
 >disturbing the electrical activity in the grey matter with
 >magnetic fields.

<snip>

 >Persinger's experiments could undermine thousands of years of
 >silly love songs. How typical of a man to prove emotions are
 >nothing more than TBDs just as we are getting men to wake up to
 >their feminine sides.

 >It is all very bad news for us sensitive, emotional, feeling
 >souls.

 >Yesterday I cried, today I hugged someone and said "I love you"
 >and it is all the result of a TBD. I am a crazy mess with a
 >brain sparking like a live wire in a mud puddle.

 >I haven't been abducted by aliens yet, but it's only a matter of
 >time before my brain convinces me I have.

 >Bring it on, Brain, I'm ready for you.


Thank God! Abductees and Alien Abduction Researchers, SETI
scientists, Astrobiologists, and mystics can put their minds to
rest at last. No aliens.

Whewww!

The SETI scientists were worried about being upstaged. Now they
can go back to their headsets. Abductees feared more intrusions
into their lives. Now all they have to do is change their minds.
And researchers worried there might be real ETs in those UFOs.
Now they can go back to worrying about strange flying pelicans.

And the rest of humanity?

We can't even trust our brains or our thinking or our writing on
this List.....

Oh, excuse me. A little grey alien just walked in and tapped me
on the shoulder. He is shaking his head. He is pointing his
finger to my head and shaking his head in the negative. I told
him to just go "poof" because I know that he is just a bit of
undigested donut I ate this morning.

Next I expect to see old Jacob Marley's ghost! :)

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 >
   Jul > Jul 23

              Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamlton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 23 Jul 2001 07:01:24 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:01:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Hamlton


 >Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:03:20 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:46:29 -0700

 >>>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:39:25 -0700
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >>>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials
 >>>>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:09:29 -0700

 >>>>For a good laugh about aliens and nanotechnology:

 >>>>http://www.aliendestiny.com/PageMexicoCity/RodolfoLinkAnalysis.htm

 >>>I just don't get it at all. Is there some special significance
 >>>to the "link artifact" that I missed? Did somebody snatch it out
 >>>of a UFO or whatever?

 >>>I've been getting home late recently and missed some Art Bell
 >>>radio shows.

 >>Actually, this so-called link artifact was supposed to have been
 >>found by UFO fraud Jonathan Reed when he wrapped up the dead
 >>alien he killed, took it home and threw it in a freezer. The
 >>website that the link goes to is ran by one of his faithful
 >>devotees who is alleging that they have evidence validating the
 >>case, which they don't. http://www.ufowatchdog.com/analysis.html

 >>However, these guys are silly enough to push this scam so far
 >>that Bob Brown has them lined up for the UFO Congress' summer
 >>sessions...just like a circus, the more bizarre the attraction
 >>the more tickets you sell to the show...

 >Thanks Royce!

 >That explains everything.

And Jaime Mauson now has video tape of this link and is leaning
toward stronger support of this case. My good (deluded) friend
Shawn Atlanti is selling Reeds' books, and new investigators say
they are finding truth in this case! Lordy, Lordy. I need to
jump on this bandwagon and find the next Reed and sign him to a
contract.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 23

                            MUFON 2001 Symposium

From: Melvin Podell <mpodell@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:44:18 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:08:09 -0400
Subject: MUFON 2001 Symposium


For the benefit of List members who were not able to attend may
I say that this MUFON conference in my opinion was the best of
some six attended over a span of some 25 years. Others who had
attended previous meetings or attended for the first time
expressed similar views.

The following speakers gave exceptional presentations and were
well received by the many attendees:

Dr. Eric Davis - Wormhole-Stargates: Tunneling Through the
                  Cosmic Neighborhood

Jaime Maussan - Encounters in Mexico

Dr. Steven Greer - Disclosure

Dr. Robert Wood - Mounting Evidence for UFO Authenticity

Ryan Wood - The First Roswell - Cape Girardeau, MO

Bob Pratt - Terror in Brazil

Joseph McMoneagle - Remote Viewing ETs

Dr. Roger Leir - Alien Implants - Why?

Budd Hopkins - UFO Abductions

Stanton Friedman - Flying Saucers & Cosmic Neighborhood


Dr. R. Wood related his continuing efforts to verify the
authenticity of previous UFO related documents. His son Ryan
displayed the fruitful results of his ongoing search for more
witnesses and info on the 1941 UFO crash at Cape Girardeau, MO,
seldom mentioned by UFO researchers.

Jaime Maussan in addition to his excellent UFO videos presented
further evidence in support of the controversial Dr. Jonathan
Reed entity case.

Dr. Greer delivered an outstanding lecture in his appeal for
support by all to further his project. His expenditure of time
and finances has risen to new levels that must be sustained
through letters to members of Congress and monetary aid.

J. McMoneagle related his achieving 75% success rate in RV and
typical targets tested.

Dr. Leir showed numerous photos on extracting alleged UFO
implants while expressing theories on human physical changes
over the past 50 years.

Budd Hopkins changed his intended lecture to focus on more
witnesses to the Linda Cortile case.

Stanton Friedman continued his widely acclaimed series of
lectures over many years with an emphasis on our cosmic
neighbors giving impact to the conference theme.


This conference should have an impact on the many attendees who
numbered approximately 1000 by estimates. The efforts of Jan
Harzan, Orange Cty MUFON director & Symposium Chairman, together
with his staff deserve special praise for making this Symposium
such a great success.

Personally this conference has changed my views regarding the
Dr. Reed case which one time was thought to have little validity
but now has more credibility going for it.

Although I previously felt that remote viewing was too
subjective, the McMoneagle lecture seems to prove that some of
the remote viewers have exceptional ability.

My reservations about supporting Dr. Greer since he lacked full
backing of MUFON and other groups has also been impacted. Dr
Greer has left the medical profession to make the Disclosure
Project his full time job. His strong drive to achieve his goal
should be an inspiration to all members of the UFO community.

Other UFO groups have nothing of this magnitude to place in
action now so why not support Disclosure. Regardless of its
weaknesses, some positive results hopefully may result and could
spearhead further action by other UFO activists for disclosure.


Mel Podell, MUFON - San Diego

mpodell@juno.com

Visit the MUFON-SD Website at:

http://n6rpf.com-us.net/mufon.html

Part of the San Diego UFO Information Homepage








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                           Science's Mything Links

From: Steve Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:13:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:11:08 -0400
Subject: Science's Mything Links


Source: The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35319-2001Jul22.html


Science's Mything Links
As the Boundaries of Reality Expand, Our Thinking Seems to Be
Going Over the Edge

By Joel Garreau
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 23, 2001; Page C01


Humans are actually a slave race created 200,000 years ago to
mine monoatomic gold that creates exotic powers for alien beings
from a 10th planet, the overlords of which are now remembered by
mankind as ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Hebrew
gods.

So contended one Neil Freer on May 24 at the Arlington
Institute, after its president, John Peterson, had told his
audience, conspicuously including uniformed U.S. military
officers, that Freer's presentation might change their lives.
The institute advises on planning for the future. Its respected
client list includes the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and
Coast Guard.

Or: The government is using black holes to park stealth space
weapons platforms several galaxies away. This connects to a
government program to use clairvoyants to sense alien presence
on the far side of the moon. So suggested the May 22 "Islands in
the Clickstream" column of technology-and-society consultant
Richard Thieme of Milwaukee. Thieme is a solid enough citizen
that his clients have included Arthur Andersen, Allstate
Insurance and the Department of the Treasury.

Have we entered an era in which mind-sizzling technological
leaps -- virtual reality, genetically altered rabbits that glow
in the dark, digital actors, laboratory animals bred to grow
human organs, stock-trading in your back yard, clones -- are now
so common that even respected members of the scientific world
are finding it increasingly difficult to separate miracles,
magic, myths and madness?

When that question was put to Kevin Kelly, executive editor of
Wired magazine when it was the bible of the digerati, he
replied, "Well, you know, I completely believe in Sasquatch and
Bigfoot."

- - -

"There is no use in trying," said Alice; "one can't believe
impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
before breakfast."

-- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

- - -

It's tough to compare one era's stock of ooga-booga with
another's. In the 1200s, scholars researched the size, shape and
precise location of Hell, as well as how many angels could fit
on the head of a pin.

Today's supply of woo-woo is certainly remarkable, however. At
no time in human history has scientific rationality so
thoroughly underpinned our society and the world's economy. As
many as 90 percent of all the scientists who have ever lived are
alive today, science historian Derek John De Solla Price once
calculated.

In the past four decades, we have created more scientific
knowledge than in the previous 5,000 years, by some reckonings
-- and we've largely amassed it by obeying the First Law of High
Tech: Think outside the box.

Is it possible that in recent years we've thought outside the
box so often that we forget why we ever thought it was a good
idea to have a box at all -- a reality model? Is one person's
beliefs about what is real as good as another's, and it's
impolite to argue otherwise? Where do we draw the line? Has
reality simply become a matter of taste?

Recently Caroline Wagner, a senior policy analyst with the
Science and Technology Policy Institute of the Rand Corp. in
Arlington, found herself in a cafe in Paris, talking into a
piece of plastic.

"I could not conceptualize how I could talk instantly with my
husband in Virginia while I was sitting on the Champs-Elysees,"
she said of her cell phone. "I realized that I just didn't
really understand how it worked. I knew the physics of it, but
when I try to really imagine it working, I can't, basically. I
just have to accept the 'magic' of it."

Magic! The ultimate dirty word, to those who count on reality
being concrete.

Yet rational, fact-based projections into the near future are
indistinguishable from science fiction. Steven Spielberg's new
film, "A.I.," is based on the work of scientists like Ray
Kurzweil, who has nine honorary doctorates, has been awarded
honors by two U.S. presidents, and was named inventor of the
year by MIT. He projects that machines will transcend mortal
brainpower within 20 years.

The paranormal and the otherworldly are a boom industry. This
summer's crop of films includes "Tomb Raiders," "Atlantis: The
Lost Empire," "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within," "Planet of
the Apes," "Ghost World," "Ghosts of Mars," "Soul Survivors" and
"Jeepers Creepers." In "Shrek" the bad guy attempts to banish
fairy tale characters and magical creatures to make a perfect
kingdom, and we're not on his side, educated as we may be.

Art Bell's national radio show, dedicated to the spooky, the
conspiratorial and the alien, broadcast from a bunker in the
Nevada desert, owns late-night radio with 10 million listeners
on more than 460 stations.

Television is loaded with witches, vampires, angels and
extraterrestrials, from Buffy and Sabrina to "3rd Rock From the
Sun" and "The X-Files."

The eight-volume apocalyptic fiction series "Left Behind" -- in
which the Book of Revelation is made into a thriller -- has sold
40 million books. Amazon.com gives a respectful review to "The
Biggest Secret," by British author David Icke, who believes
George Bush and Al Gore are alien lizards.

On the Internet, Crank Dot Net is "devoted to presenting Web
sites by and about cranks, crankism, crankishness, and
crankosity. All cranks, all the time." Its index alone is a
thrilling catalogue of today's belief systems, from alien
abductions to zero-point energy. Tasty categories include
alchemy, antigravity, Area 51, Atlantis, Bible code, conspiracy,
crop circles, Einstein was wrong, hollow Earth, Holocaust
deniers, Martians, Nostradamus, proof of God, Roswell, N.M., and
its imprisoned aliens, sacred geometry, satanism, scientific
creationism, Scientology, star drives, time travel, and urine
therapy.

Where do you draw the line between the marvelous and the
lunatic? And if you can't agree on something as basic as that,
how do all the pieces of society work together?

- - -

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-- The late astronomer Carl Sagan, winner of the Pulitzer Prize,
author of "Cosmos" -- the best-selling science book in the
history of the English language -- and believer in the
possibility of extraterrestrial life and intelligence.

- - -

There are time-honored ways to weed out ideas about alien
invaders from the planet Nibiru, says Robert Ehrlich, the
physics professor at George Mason University and author of the
recent "Nine Crazy Ideas in Science."

Ehrlich acknowledges that he is way out on a limb as a scientist
in that he can imagine how a particle called a tachyon might
travel faster than light, despite everything Einstein said. He
also believes that time travel is not out of the question.

Nonetheless, he contends you can make some reasonable attacks on
extravagant claims.

For example, he says, you can locate in the realm of the
faith-based any ideas that cannot be tested or proved false --
like the notion that the world is only 5,000 years old but was
created to look as if it were 4.5 billion years old.

Obsessiveness rings his bells. "A key indicator here is the
proposer's selectivity in paying great attention to facts that
may support the idea, but paying scant attention to facts that
refute it." He puts cold fusion in this category.

Overambitiousness: "A theory of everything that cannot actually
calculate anything, or make definitive predictions that allow it
to be tested, does not seem very promising," he says. Rupert
Sheldrake's notion of "morphic resonance," which holds that
everything from crystals to human society inherit a collective
memory, is his example.

Secrecy among researchers, he says, creates "the impression that
they have something to hide, and would prefer that others not
try to replicat e their results."

Simplicity, on the other hand, he admires. All things being
equal, he'll always default to the most elegant and spare
explanation -- like E=mc{+2} -- that fits the observable. This
principle of choosing the simplest solution has been known since
the Middle Ages as "Occam's razor," after a Franciscan thinker
named William of Ockham.

A useful way to look at a proposition is to consider its
consequences. It's not good to believe that antigravity shields
will allow you to step out of a 26th-story window, for example,
while the consequences of being wrong can be so dramatic.

The blurring of the line between genius and madness, or science
and superstition, supports a small book industry all its own.
These works include "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness
to Fraud," by the University of Maryland's Robert L. Park, and
"The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense" and
"Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition,
and Other Confusions of Our Time" by Michael Shermer, editor in
chief of Skeptic magazine. There is even "The Complete Idiot's
Guide to Urban Legends."

The thinking that underpins conventional descriptions of reality
is hardly secret. "It's pretty widely publicized," says Shermer,
a leading scourge of superstition and bad science. "There's lot
of popular science writing and TV shows. It's not a mystery."

So what's going on?

"lt goes to the heart of why religion is still so hugely popular
even in this age of science," says Shermer. "At the start of the
20th century, sociologists said religiosity would decline
because of public education and rise of science. Instead, it got
bigger. All of this stuff is linked to the desire for there to
be Something Else with a capital S. A force or a power. It's the
basis of mythology -- all that Joseph Campbell 'Power of Myth'
stuff. We love all that. That's why 'Star Wars' and the Force
were so popular."

Why is that appealing?

"Humans are pattern-seeking storytelling animals trying to make
sense of our world. And it seems that weird forces surround us.
This desire to believe goes way back in evolutionary history."

Think of the constellations in the night sky. Humans eagerly
connect dots and then come up with the most elaborate -- even
poetic -- tales to imbue them with meaning.

After all, lots of theories have gone from mad to mainstream --
the Earth revolves around the sun, or man can fly, or continents
drift about on tectonic plates, or quantum physics can wrap
everything tangible in ideas like "quarks" and "charm." As the
physicist Niels Bohr remarked, 'Anyone who is not shocked by
quantum theory has not understood it." He also said, "You never
understand quantum physics, you just get used to it."

Nowadays, you might say, we're so used to not being used to
things that it's easy to be used to anything.

Even respectable, mainstream scientists whose theories are
totally inside the box sound outside the box to a lot of people.

The expanding universe is accelerating because of a mysterious
anti-gravitational force. Mars rocks may have life forms; and
why not, since bacteria two miles deep in stone turn out to be
alive.

Even undergraduates can now conduct experiments in which an
electron is in two places at once. Matter is made up of
superstrings vibrating in as many as 13 dimensions. Modern
cosmology discusses multiple universes, and universes that beget
universes.

Betty Sue Flowers, a professor at the University of Texas at
Austin, says: "The Enlightenment, the Renaissance gave us a
sense of coherence. There was a benevolent God that invented the
universe, even if it were a clockwork frame. That framework has
been up for grabs -- it has fallen away. For a long time it
didn't bother us. But now we are facing strong questions. Should
we indeed ban the cloning of humans? For that you need a larger
frame. We do not have that agreed-upon larger frame. This is a
spiritual crisis. It's not about science."

- - -

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.

-- Arthur C. Clarke, author of "2001: A Space Odyssey"

- - -

Flowers, who teaches poetry, was the editor of "The Power of
Myth," the book by Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers that
accompanied the hugely popular and honored PBS series of the
same name. She points out the differences between religion and
science: "The rules for thinking in science mean that no matter
how weird your idea, you can follow your weirdness and disprove
it or come up with a better weirdness. If you do, everybody else
will drop the old weirdness. That's the distinguishing aspect of
science. You can convince people to drop the weirdness they're
holding. Religious weirdness, there's no way to get rid of it
except to go to war."

Flowers sees a cultural revolution coming that seeks to address
today's confusions about how things really do fit together. She
says: "What's emerging is an interesting amalgam. It comes from
our economic myths, of globalization, that everything fits
together. And that overlays our environmental work about the way
things fit together. Even if it's a remote snail, it has
intrinsic value. There is an interconnectedness of things. There
is a value somehow in the way things are connected -- the web of
life. That's the next enlightenment." She can imagine our
interest in the way things fit together being expressed in an
increased interest in beauty.

The importance of creating such a commonly held framework,
Flowers believes, is "it synchronizes human activity. It
distinguishes what 'outside the box' is. It gives you a way to
move forward together."

Ray Kurzweil thinks he sees where scientific rationality and our
apparently inbred need for transcendence can reconcile -- can
fit together in a way that would help us come up with a new
frame. He sees the rise of intelligent machines that will not
only raise astounding questions about what constitutes reality,
but perhaps will also help us resolve some.

Kurzweil is credited with creating not only the first commercial
computer scanner but also the first machines that could read
books out loud to the blind. His latest book is called "The Age
of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human
Intelligence."

He accepts and assumes that our world is being transformed at an
exponential rate by technology, but he sees in that a beauty, a
kind of art.

"I always thought of technology as magical," he says. "It's
about transcendence. If you put materials or sounds or colors in
a certain pattern, the power of it becomes greater than just the
materials that go into it. That's true of art, music and
technology."

He is convinced that humans and the intelligent machines we are
creating are coming together. Within 10 years, he believes, when
a thousand-dollar personal computer can perform a trillion
calculations a second and can be embedded in clothing, most
routine business transactions, like sales and travel
reservations, will take place between a human and a machine
personality that looks like a human face and has pretty good
powers of spontaneous speech.

"In my view, human civilization will come to accept that there's
not much difference between information processing in biological
brains or non-biological," Kurzweil says. "That's a political
prediction."

He adds: "By 2030, 2040, non-biological forms of thinking will
become dominant.

We will encounter entities that are not biological that will
claim really very convincingly to be conscious. How can we
resolve that? Our consciousness is the most important aspect of
reality. We will be doing a lot of things that only exist in the
mystical world today. Where mystical beliefs impinge on our
direct observations, people see angels.

Go back through history and the beliefs in angels, gods and
goddesses have deep roots."

Are you saying that any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from angels?

"Depends what you mean by angels," he says.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 24

               Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 05:25:39 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:13:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials - Myers


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 23 Jul 2001 07:01:24 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials

 >>Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:03:20 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Nanotechnology And Alien Materials


<snip>

 >And Jaime Mauson now has video tape of this link and is leaning
 >toward stronger support of this case. My good (deluded) friend
 >Shawn Atlanti is selling Reeds' books, and new investigators say
 >they are finding truth in this case! Lordy, Lordy. I need to
 >jump on this bandwagon and find the next Reed and sign him to a
 >contract.

Bill,

Why don't you ask Atlanti about 'Dr.' Harold Chacon's employment
as a gas station clerk for the last 4 to 5 years? I wasn't
aware that Chevron was handing out Ph.Ds to its clerks...

I'm quite surprised this ruse has lasted as long as it has. No
wonder UFOlogy takes hits all the time.


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind...or that Slurppie spill by the
soda machine where the alien fell and cracked 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 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                      Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 05:29:49 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:15:10 -0400
Subject: Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Myers


 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:44:18 -0700
 >Subject: MUFON 2001 Symposium
 >From: Melvin Podell <mpodell@juno.com>

 >Jaime Maussan in addition to his excellent UFO videos presented
 >further evidence in support of the controversial Dr. Jonathan
 >Reed entity case.

 >Personally this conference has changed my views regarding the
 >Dr. Reed case which one time was thought to have little validity
 >but now has more credibility going for it.

I'd like to know what evidence was presented that has changed
your mind about this case. I still am having a hard time
grasping why anyone would lend any credence to this case.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                      Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:16:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:20:48 -0400
Subject: Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Young


 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:44:18 -0700
 >Subject: MUFON 2001 Symposium
 >From: Melvin Podell <mpodell@juno.com>

 >For the benefit of List members who were not able to attend may
 >I say that this MUFON conference in my opinion was the best of
 >some six attended over a span of some 25 years. Others who had
 >attended previous meetings or attended for the first time
 >expressed similar views.

<snip>

 >Dr. Greer delivered an outstanding lecture in his appeal for
 >support by all to further his project. His expenditure of time
 >and finances has risen to new levels that must be sustained
 >through letters to members of Congress and monetary aid.

 >J. McMoneagle related his achieving 75% success rate in RV and
 >typical targets tested.

Why doesn't McMoneagle, who must now be the wealthiest man in
the world as the result of visits to the world's gambling
casinos, simply send Dr. Leir the money and leave the rest of us
alone?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                       Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

From: YoungBob2@aol.com
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 07:57:28 -0400
Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey


A letter from this past Sunday's Star Ledger (NJ) may shed some
real light on the July 14-15 mystery lights:

-----

Logical Explanation

When I heard about the mysterious lights in Carteret, the first
thing I did was call my husband because he works at a data
center there. I figured maybe he would have a clue as to what
the mystery was about.

Maybe he was the only one with a grip on reality. According to
my husband, the lights were nothing more than a group of planes
approaching the airport (Newark Airport, one on the 3 big in NYC
area - WTH) slowly and quietly. He said the planes flew by while
he was smoking a cigarette outside the building. He too was
intrigued by the mysterious lights when he first saw them, but
when they flew over the data center it became clear the lights
were airplanes.

Human imagination is quite amusing. Perhaps some people need
drama in their lives.Maybe some lives are just so boring that
people need to fabricate stories about UFO's. The evidence is
clear. Let's be logical.

Carol Giroux,
Edison, [NJ]

-----

I had earlier suggested that the lights may have been New Jersey
Army or Air National Guard aircraft dropping flares. This was a
Saturday night on a summer weekend. I think that it may be that
our old friends, "the Martians" or their colleagues, may be
flying some ultralights.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                 Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:56:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:01:10 -0400
Subject: Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - Rudiak


In a message dated 01-07-22 23:38:44 EDT, you write:

 >Source: *Spark-Online Version 22.0

 >http://www.spark-online.com/issue22/kavanagh.html

 >A Temporary Brain Disturbance

 >by Gail Kavanagh

 >According to Canadian scientist Michael Persinger, believing you
 >have been abducted by aliens or found God is the result of a
 >"temporary brain disturbance".

 >Persinger has been tinkering with the heads of volunteers,
 >disturbing the electrical activity in the grey matter with
 >magnetic fields.

 >The volunteers feel as if they have been poked and prodded by
 >alien probes, or they report intense emotional reactions similar
 >to religious ecstacy. Since this phenomena can obviously occur
 >without magnetic interference from mad Canadian scientists, this
 >could explain reports of such abductions. Of course, the brain
 >is mysterious territory. It fills a cavity in our skulls and for
 >the most part makes sure that we know left from right, up from
 >down, and fully comprehend gravity so we don't fall off really
 >tall buildings.

 >We rely on our brains for a lot of stuff�for being able to see
 >and hear and move and talk and even for being alive. Once the
 >brain shuts down, even a fully functioning heart and other offal
 >is not regarded as evidence of life as we know it.

 >Our brains formed the word as well as the concept of paranoia.
 >Just because it isn't there, doesn't mean it isn't out to get
 >you. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to
 >see it, can it still flatten your house? But Persinger has taken
 >paranoia to a whole new level. Forget the CIA, the FBI and all
 >those other initials, it's our damn brains we can't trust. Our
 >brains are stuffing us around all over the place. They lie to
 >us, convince us we have been probed by grey guys with radar dish
 >eyes, have spoken to God, met Elvis in the frozen food aisle of
 >the local supermarket, or fallen in love.


A few years ago I went down to the local university library and
did a literature search on Persinger. When I read the abstracts,
it quickly became obvious that this was pure schlock science,
and that's dignifying it.

Persinger believes that extremely tiny fluctuations in the
geomagnetic field are sufficient to induce all manner of
hallucinations, and even used this to "explain" death of his lab
rats. The magnetic field strengths and frequencies Persinger
claims capable of doing all this are comparable to what any of
us might experience standing over an electric stove, using an
electric hair drier, shaving with an electric razor, etc. Have
any of you seen Elvis or experienced alien abductions while
scrambling your eggs?

In one of my past lives as a research scientist, I worked for a
few years with magnetic neuro-stimulators. These devices are
capable of inducing stimulation currents in the brain 7 or 8
orders of magnitudes greater than the feeble geomagnetic field
fluctuations Persinger claims can do all manner of things. Even
at the level of stimulation we (and others) were using, it turns
out to be extremely difficult to induce any sort of sensory
responses (motor responses are a lot easier).

We were working in the visual cortex. At best, we got extremely
crude visual stimulation -- things like brief flashes of light,
maybe a simple geometric shape, but that's about it. There were
never any complex shapes, much less prolonged alien abduction
scenarios.

Persinger is pushing pure pseudo-science. That's all it is. The
only reason he has an audience in the scientific community is
that even among scientists, some would rather believe pure snake
oil explanations than consider the possibility that UFOs could
be real.

Incidentally, this isn't an argument for the reality of alien
abductions, a field I know little about. It's me expressing
anger at crap "scientific" explanations that get taken seriously
by people who should know a lot better.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                  Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Gonzlez Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:22:47 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:13:21 -0400
Subject: Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Gonzlez Manso


 >From: Melvin Podell <mpodell@juno.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:44:18 -0700
 >Subject: MUFON 2001 Symposium
 >From: Melvin Podell <mpodell@juno.com>


Melvin wrote:

 >Dr. Leir showed numerous photos on extracting alleged UFO
 >implants while expressing theories on human physical changes
 >over the past 50 years.

Can you clarify what physical changes he mentioned?

 >Budd Hopkins changed his intended lecture to focus on more
 >witnesses to the Linda Cortile case.

Can you give us more data? I suppose the new lecture is _not_
included in the Proceedings. Is he going to write about this new
development somewhere?


Thanks,

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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

             Scientists Say Meteors Common, Mass Sightings Rare

From: Steven L. Wilson Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:01:02 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:36:40 -0400
Subject: Scientists Say Meteors Common, Mass Sightings Rare


Source: KPRC, Houston

http://kprcradio.com/


Tuesday July 24 2:22 PM ET

Scientists Say Meteors Common, Mass Sightings Rare
Audio/Video


Meteor Shower Seen Along East Coast - (KPRC, Houston)

By David MorganPHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The fiery meteor that
streaked across the northeastern United States, stunning
eyewitnesses from Canada to Virginia, was likely one of the
small stony space objects that enter Earth's atmosphere at a
rate of two a month, scientists said on Tuesday.

But the phenomenon on Monday that tied up emergency telephone
lines in a half-dozen U.S. states was still rare, because the
meteor appeared on a clear evening over one of the most heavily
populated regions of North America. Scientists say that has not
happened for a decade.

"I'm guessing it was an air blast from an object the size of a
basketball," said Don Yeomans, who oversees the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Near-Earth Object
Program.

"We do get interplanetary material raining down on the Earth to
the tune of 400 tons a day, mostly dust but also rocky
particles. And when they're as large as a baseball, a basketball
or a small car, they put on quite a display by forming a giant
fireball trail before exploding."This sort of thing's not
unusual," Yeomans said.

"What is unusual is that it happened over a densely inhabited
area. Usually it's over an ocean, or a sparely populated area,
and nobody sees it."

The meteor, believed to be a chunk of asteroid, was sighted
traveling at a supersonic speed over the U.S. mid-Atlantic at
about 6:19 p.m. (2219 GMT), by witnesses up to 500 miles (800
km) apart.

Some who caught the momentary spectacle imagined it the size of
an airplane or a house.

One man in southeastern Pennsylvania said he assumed it was as
big as a Jeep Grand Cherokee, a popular sport utility vehicle.

A Reuters reporter driving 20 miles (32 km) west of Philadelphia
saw a long trumpet-shaped object descending toward the western
horizon at a 30-degree angle while emitting a rainbow of colors
from bright yellow at the flared leading edge to pale green and
a tapered tail for rusty red.

Terence Dickinson, the Canada-based science writer and author of
the popular astronomy book 'NightWatch: A Practical Guide to
Viewing the Universe', estimated such a sighting would put the
object about 120 miles (190 km) northwest of Philadelphia.

At about the same time, residents 150 miles away in the rural
hamlet of Salladasburg, Pennsylvania, reported a series of loud
explosions that shook their homes and shattered window glass.

Scientists believe that may have been the sound of the meteor
exploding in the atmosphere.


Copyright � 2001 Reuters Limited.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                          Filer's Files #30 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:58:10 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:39:39 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #30 -- 2000


Filer's Files #30 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
July 22, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts, Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

UFO REPORTS from Massachusetts of a flying disc, New Jersey
lights, Pennsylvania disc, a Virginia football UFO, Georgia
plasma, Florida plasma orbs, Wisconsin flying triangle, Canada
lights, Argentina orb UFO, and United Kingdom flaming UFO. PROVE
UFOs exist by watching the skies and the International Space
Station

Since the successful intercept of a ballistic missile over the
Pacific Ocean on July 14, 2001, the aircrews of UFOs have been
putting on spectacular shows. Strange bright pulsating lights,
discs, plasmas, and Flying triangles are being reported around
the United States. During the summer months a tremendous amount
of electrical energy is being pumped into the atmosphere. This
electrical energy comes from multiple sources such as aircraft,
automobile engines, radar's, electrical transmission lines,
communication devices, and even sun flares. Numerous reports of
plasmas, orbs, and electromagnetic energy similar to ball
lightning have been reported. Project HAARP is also pumping huge
amounts of energy into the atmosphere. Dr. Nick Begich the
author of "Angels Don't Play This HAARP," claims the government
is dumping a billion watts of electronic radiation into the
upper atmosphere. "One way to visualize this power level is that
10-billion watt generator, running continuously! for one hour,
would deliver a quantity of energy equal to that of a Hiroshima
size atomic bomb. (Page 112) The US Air Force's scientific
advisory board on weapons for the 21st century states, "One can
envision the development of electromagnetic energy sources, the
output of which can be pulsed, shaped, and focused, that can
couple with the human body in a fashion that will allow one to
prevent voluntary muscular movements, control emotions with both
short-term and long-term memory, produce an experience set, and
delete an experience set." " It may be possible to "talk" to
selected adversaries "in a fashion that would be most disturbing
to them."

Our atmosphere is so filled with energy that this may result in
various displays of plasmas in our skies or help make the UFOs
more visible. Arthur C. Clarke, author of "2001: A Space
Odyssey" said, Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic. And here it is 2001.

NORTHEAST US FIREBALLS

Peter Davenport called to advise that multiple fireball like
objects have been reported smashing through the atmosphere and
exploding on July 23, 2001, at 6 to 6:30 PM. The reports of a
large fireball or bolide was reported from all over the East
Coast centered on the northern Appalachian Mountains heading
west and causing large explosions. It is a natural event, which
is called a bolide or a fireball. If the fireball hit Earth
during the night time hours it would have been spectacular. It
appeared similar to shooting star and was probably the size of
a car and may have broken apart as it descended and burned as
it entered our atmosphere. If some pieces made it to the ground
they are quite valuable. The fireball may alert us to the
potential danger from space.

MASSACHUSETTS FLYING SAUCER AND ORBS

BOSTON -- An anonymous caller notified me that he had observed
numerous bright orbs twenty miles west of the city on July 13,
2001. The sun was setting in the western sky around 8:00 PM,
when he and his son noticed a series of bright lights heading
toward him. The lights were in a rough V formation and at first
he thought they were a dozen aircraft with their landing lights
on approaching the city. As they came closer the lights started
blinking off and eventually they all disappeared.

HANOVER -- The witness reports that on July 11, 2001, at 5:45
PM driving south on Route 3 he noticed a white flash, as if
something popped below the clouds ahead to my right at 2
o'clock. The flash didn't diminish, so it caught my interest.
As it got closer I saw that there were no wings, so it wasn't a
helicopter. I also observed a strange aura/trail around it
similar to the heat that rises off a hot road. There were no
sounds and the craft seemed also to have a slight wobble maybe
caused by the aura, as it seemed to blur the outline. The
object was silver and seemed to have black on it. The shape
seemed to resemble a trash can or disc. It continued to
approach, and passed overhead and I lost sight of it. Total
time of sighting less than 7-8 seconds.

NEW YORK GOLFERS SITE ORBS

ROCHESTER -- Two witnesses were just sitting outside the Chili
Disc Golf Club when they casually looked above the parking lot
and noticed three flying objects darting around the northern
sky. The objects were darting back and forth, blinking out,
moving rapidly at 13:31 hours. Then they were joined at various
times by 3 more-all the while darting back, forth -- up, and
down across the sky. They moved slowly from a due north
position to a more easterly position over a period of 10
minutes. They were distracted by a bike-rider and never saw the
objects again. The objects were last observed moving southeast.
Thanks to WUFOD.

NEW JERSEY PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

CARTERET -- A series of strange extraordinary lights were seen
flying over Carteret only 10 miles from downtown Manhattan on
Sunday morning July 15, 2001. This sighting has created a great
deal of interest in the news media and the local population.
Peter Davenport at the National UFO Reporting Center received
at least fifteen reports concerning the sighting. We are
working to investigate the cause of the sighting. The story was
carried on CNN, MSNBC, ABC New Jersey FM 101.5, and many other
stations. The object flew about a five miles south of Newark
Airport around 12:30 AM. Witnesses reported seeing a cluster of
lights estimated as 15 to 30 amber, gold, orange lights
hovering and moving slowly at an estimated 10 mph. Many
witnesses were traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike when they
noticed the lights above them and an estimated 75 cars stopped
on side of the highway. Many of their occupants stood outside
their vehicles watching the formation of lights. This is a twe!
lve lane lighted highway and the light pollution creates
difficult viewing.

Six policemen and hundreds of witnesses viewed the huge
unidentified flying object or objects. After initial
investigation witnesses agree that a very large object was
flying at about 10 to 20 mph described variously as a V, U, or
M formation. The light formation appeared different to various
witnesses. Some people claimed to have seen 30 white lights;
some claim they were only able to view a dozen lights. Those in
darker locations described the lights as white, others called
them amber or gold. About ten lights stayed lit continuously
and at least a half dozen other brightened and dimmed in
unison. The witnesses claimed the lights stayed in the same
relative position as they moved slowly across the sky towards
the southeast. Some people claimed the lights appeared to fall
or climb just before going out.

I have made an initial examination of the videotape taken off
the news channel. There appears to be a smaller structured
object in the lower right hand part of the screen. This object
appears to have two smaller lights and may be the source of all
the lights perhaps using holographic projections. In-depth
analysis of the videotape is needed. The sound bite from the
video was also interesting in that you could hear a woman's
voice say, "Isn't it amazing!" This lends credibility to the
video, since it doesn't sound like their acting. In recent days
many of the witnesses were whisked off in limousines to appear
on the various news shows. Some were paid for their videos and
photos making it difficult for our research until things quiet
down.

Peter Davenport appeared on MS NBC and discussed the sighting.
I thought it was significant that the host commented that the
station gets numerous UFO reports everyday, and they could
spend all their time covering UFO reports, but this one was
special. "Eyewitness Joe Malvasio said, "It was one of the most
amazing things I've ever seen. They were just hovering, and
then they just disappeared. One at a time, each one started to
fade until they were gone." According to investigator Bob
Durant the wind was measured at 2351 hours from 340 degrees at
10 mph, and at 0051 hours on July 15, from 310 degrees at 10
mph with clear sky. The winds indicate the lights may have been
drifting with the wind to the southeast. The descriptions and
video are similar to the Phoenix Lights, where a similar V
formation appeared in March of 1997. Another similar sighting
was reported over Rockford, Illinois on March 18, 2001. The
formation also matches reports of unexplained lights in the sky
! from all across the United States, as well as England and
Europe.

According to ABC news, Colm Kelleher of the National Institute
of Discovery Science (NIDS) says that from what he's heard,
this one sounds like the Jersey Lights were a set of military
flares. The NIDS claims their witnesses saw pieces of burning
debris coming off the lights, and another said he saw a puff of
smoke when one of the lights went out through his night vision
binoculars, although he did not see a parachute. Unless these
two witnesses are lying (one is a cop, the other in "special
forces"), it sounds like something man-made.
"http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/ufo_nj010719.html.

We know that each witness will observe extraordinary objects in
a different way. It is interesting to note that MUFON witnesses
did not see any evidence of flares. The lights did not swing
like they were attached to parachutes nor was there smoke,
lines, or structure visible. The lights operated in a
continuous manner similar to aircraft lights, unlike flares.
The lights moved in unison as if connected to a flying object.
Another group of five or six lights brightened and dimmed in
unison. Flares when dropped from an aircraft are generally
blown around randomly and will drift and descend downwind.
Generally, they do not remain burning or airborne for more than
5 minutes, while most witnesses claimed a much longer time
period. Smoke trails are usually quite visible as flares slowly
descend. I have also fired Anti-Sam flares from my aircraft
that travel like a rocket with a visible trail. In most videos
and eyewitness accounts flares with parachutes are discernible
as t! hey meander and descend fairly quickly. We estimate the
total sighting to be ten to twenty minutes. Flares also tend to
illuminate the parachutes and area around them. They do not
brighten and dim in unison. I visited the area of the sighting
specifically looking for any signs of parachutes or similar
remains. So far the police have not located any evidence of
flares or similar burning or pyrotechnic objects. There have
been no fires reported. The entire area over flown is densely
populated with homes, and numerous fuel tanks. Signs are posted
stating no smoking due to the obvious danger from fire among
the tanks. I also visited the shoreline of the Arthur Kill
River. There was no evidence on or along the shore of
parachutes or pyrotechnic devices. We can hypothesize that a
formation of balloons or aircraft could carry the lights or
special long burning flares.

The Federal Aviation Administration said, that there were no
planned military operations in the area and that air traffic
was light at the time of the reported sightings. No pilots
flying in or out of Newark Airport reported seeing anything out
of the ordinary. One witness claimed that an aircraft on
approach to Newark Airport appeared to be diverted prior to
landing. The military has denied having flights in the area.
The New Jersey Air National Guard 177th Fighter Wing at
Atlantic City Airport denied any exercises or having any F-16
aircraft airborne at the time. McGuire AFB 305th Air Mobility
Wing also denied having any aircraft airborne at the time.
There are no restricted areas in the Carteret area although air
traffic is under tight control because of the three major
airports. The Army's Picatinny Arsenal is 30 miles northwest of
Carteret. Based on the wind direction the lights are likely to
have flown over the arsenal. I called and spoke to the Command
Section w! ho denied launching any kind of balloons or flares
with artillery. They assured me they didn't do anything like
that there,

I drove several hours to Carteret to interview a Ukrainian
Priest, Right Reverend, Father Chubenko on July 17, 2001. I
believe he is probably the strongest witness because of his
location at a comparatively dark observation point next to the
rectory on Roosevelt Road. He is extremely intelligent, an
excellent witness, an electrical engineer, and a pilot. He was
adamant in his belief that the lights were not flares. He has
flown over the area on a regular basis and felt the lights were
at 3,000 feet altitude. He measured the lights with his fist at
arm's length and the lights covered 5 widths of his fist about
24 inches. He estimated the lights covered a 1000 feet of air
space.

Additionally he documented his sighting immediately after it
occurred and before any news media coverage. He specifically
tried to analyze what he was viewing. We were both interviewed
on ABC Channel 12 by Cynthia Scott. His son Greg Chubenko was
driving in Carteret, when he spotted the UFO and phoned his
father who was in bed. Father Chubenko got dressed and went
outside to observe and immediately spotted 15 or more lights
flying over the Rectory. Father Chubenko indicated, that an
apparent craft flew overhead, although he did not see a
structure only lights. He watched the lights very closely for
more than 5 to 10 minutes. The lights were completely
synchronized and brightened and dimmed in unison. There was
emission from the light like a candle droppings, as the lights
would descend before shutting off. Almost all witnesses claim
these were not flares, candles in bags etc. The lights were
similar to glowing stars, but not shining in any particular
direction.

I asked specifically if he thought these were flares? He said,
these were not flares he was sure of that. The lights did go
out periodically. He felt that many lights moved in unison that
they appeared to be attached to some kind of an object probably
a craft, although he did not personally see a craft. The lights
moved in unison and they brightened and dimmed in unison as if
they were attached to the same craft. The newspaper claimed
that the lights might be bags of garbage on fire. He laughed
since fuel storage tanks cover this area and burning objects
could easily cause a fire. The lights periodically stopped
working and shut down as if one was turning off a light. Some
may have fell 400 to 500 feet like they were shutting down. It
did not appear as a burning light, a flame, a fire, or a flare.
They were more like a star or planet. This is one of the most
densely populated areas in the world. Since there have been no
fires associated with the UFO sighting the po! lice are not
investigating the possibility of arson or pyrotechnic devices.

I also interviewed Middlesex County Sheriff's officer Andrew
Halkovich. He had not actually seen the craft, but was on his
porch with his dog at the time the UFO flew over. His dog
suddenly jumped up and started barking, jumping, and running
around on his two back feet. He had never seen his dog do
anything similar to this and was quite surprised and concerned.
He had trouble trying to keep the dog quiet and calming it
down. He did not think to look into the sky at the time. They
live near the Newark Airport and his dog is quite familiar with
aircraft flying overhead. He felt it was very significant that
his dog felt or heard the UFO. No one has reported that the
object made any noise.

Another, MUFON investigator has been able to interview Lt.
Daniel Tarrant of the Carteret Police Department who claims, "I
saw 16 golden-orange colored lights, several in a V-type
formation, others were scattered around the V." Lt. Tarrant
felt it was some kind of falling space debris. At least 15
people contacted the Carteret Police Department.

NOTAMS: The Notice to Airmen (NOTAMS) or warnings are much
earlier in the day and fifty miles to the south. This area
around Carteret is also devoid of low level Military Training
Routes or restricted flight areas. The investigation will
continue.

PENNSYLVANIA SILVER DISC

VAN SCIVER LAKE -- Justin Time writes, I wanted to advise you
of a daytime sighting that I had on July 15, 2001, while
fishing in a tournament in Tullytown, Pa. Sometime between
11:00 AM and noon while speaking with my fishing partner, I
noticed a small silver metallic colored oval shaped sphere to
the east. The sighting lasted only a few seconds. It looked
very similar to the object filmed in Gulf Breeze, Florida that
I saw on television. The two objects are very similar. I kept
waiting for the disc to blink out like the one on the video,
but it never did until it flew behind a cloud. My fishing
partner did not see the object; but he saw my facial expression
change, and asked, what I was looking at? The day was clear
with blue skies and broken white puffy clouds. The object moved
left to right, and right to left, in short staccato like
movements. I did not perceive any altitude changes. It was
about the size of the head of a pin at arm's length. Thanks to
tsunami11! 19@hotmail.com

Editor's Note: Justin is most likely referring to Ed Walters
who wrote several books such as the "Gulf Breeze Sightings" and
"UFOs Are Real; Here's The Proof" by co-author Bruce Maccabee
with an introduction by Major George A. Filer.

VIRGINIA FOOTBALL SHAPED UFO

ROANOKE -- Robin Hodge reports that T.R. was driving to work on
July 12, 2001, on Peterscreek Road when he saw a very large
blimp like object near Mill Mountain at 10:20 PM. T.R.
described the object as being shaped like a football with many
amber lights outlining the shape. He said he could see a very
large strobing reddish orange light on top of the object and
the bottom was lit amber underneath. He said he could not have
blocked the object out if he were to hold a quarter at extended
arms length. My husband called the Roanoke Regional Airport
traffic control. He asked, if there were any blimps in the area
last night and the control officer said "no". I asked him if
anything unusual had come across radar and he said "not to my
knowledge". T R is a very reliable conservative citizen. Thanks
to Robin ahodge@roava.net

GEORGIA GREEN ORB

ROSWELL -- On June 1, 2001, (Father's Day), a resident was in
her backyard feeding raccoons in the woods when a green
hovering ball of light suddenly appeared off to her left, very
close and low at 10:42 PM. Then, "as though a lens opened," the
vicinity of the witness and the raccoons was illuminated by a
soft greenish light. Then within moments, the ball and
illumination moved to the area of her neighbors property on her
left where some trees had been removed. The witness looked
directly at the hovering light ball, and within a few moments
it seemed to 'implode' and vanish, the soft greenish
illumination also vanishing. The witness indicated that she was
sure of the location of the ball directly over her property,
then her neighbor's place, perhaps 20 to 25 feet above the
ground. It moved about 30 feet away after moving over the
property line. The witness made direct eye contact with the
green ball and for about five seconds and noticed that it
appeared to have 2 or 3 h! orizontal slits in the middle. It was
several times her thumb size at arm's length with no sound.
Thanks to Tom Sheets MUFONGA

FLORIDA PLASMA ORB

MIAMI -- Susan Cerdan reports a substitute teacher for
Sebastian High School had a report by two teenage girls. They
were driving east on 512, on July 17, 2001, in Vero Lake
Estates, just north of Vero Beach, at around 9:50 at night. The
driver saw an object out of the corner of her eye assuming it
was the full moon. She was with her sister who was looking
straight at it who yelled, "oh wow!" The object was big and
bright yellow, moving slowly eastward on a diagonal. It looked
like the full moon and in a flash it exploded (imploded)? And
was gone. The next night Channel 25 in West Palm Beach, the
news anchor reported a woman had seen a UFO the same day, that
was fiery and red/yellow, she heard an explosion and heard a
splash, as it went into the ocean. She later found some unusual
rocks on the beach and had an expert from the local museum who
claimed they were volcanic rock from off the coast of Florida?
Thanks to Susan Sunset Director/Founder The Florida UFO
Research ! & Study Group sunset@sunet.net!

WISCONSIN FLYING TRIANGLE

DUNDEE -- Jim Aho writes we have a hot new sensational UFO
report on July 15, 2001, from with over 50 witnesses, photos
and even VERY CLEAR video taken by a professional. The object
was a Flying Triangular shaped craft. The witness Tim states,
"I observed it through binoculars and I could see that it had
three lights at the corners - blue, purple and green - and a
faint blue outline. At first, the object was stationary but a
ball of light approached the triangle from the right and
changed both course and appearance. It changed from a ball of
light to two lights: one red and one flashing white and could
have even been mistaken for an aircraft. After about 7 minutes,
the triangle craft started moving in a tumbling motion like it
was almost rolling away to the right. It was like a pyramid
with three sides and a bottom. When it started moving I could
see that it was three dimensional. Jim writes, "I have seen a
photograph of the craft. It's a little blurred because it was!
moving but is an outstanding sighting. There were about 17
witnesses who were at Bill Benson's UFO Bar facing south who
saw orange lights, and a light with a bluish "cloud" around it.
I saw a pyramid shape with three lights across the base that
were purple, white and blue. The object moved slowly enough for
us to get a good long look." Heidi Hollis is investigating.
Thanks to Jim Aho W-Files http://www.w-files.com

CANADA NUMEROUS LIGHTS

PORT COLBORNE, ONTARIO -- Brian of HBCC UFO Research reports
that on July 16, 2001, the witness came down stairs to check on
his child who awoke and called out at 2:23 AM. There was a
glowing light circling just above the clouds. It wasn't
circling in a neat pattern; it almost looked as though it was
going into a dip as it would turn and come back around. I was
so amazed at what I was seeing so I awakened my daughter and
had her come and watch. We both stood there watching and
another appeared and they began to move in sequence. This
lasted for another minute and my daughter decided to return to
bed. Five more appeared and it disappeared before my eyes. This
is the second time I have witnessed this light in the clouds
near Fort Erie. I believe I witnessed some kind of alien craft!
Thanks to HBCC - yogi@lakesweb.com
http://www.homestead.com/ufo3/ufo.html

UNITED KINGDOM FLAMING UFO

MALVERN HILLS -- On July 1, 2001, a mass of yellow and orange
flame was seen over the Malvern Hills, emitting a shower of
sparks and a strange trail of vapor at 7:10 CDT. Jon Percer, of
Welland, spotted the strange object and alerted his wife Mary.
"It wasn't going very fast and the vapor trail didn't get any
longer." The couple watched the object for several minutes
before it disappeared over the hills. A spokesman for the Royal
Air Force said there were no operational air bases nearby.
Thanks to Worcester News Cosmiverse Staff Writer

ARGENTINA UFO SIGHTED BY POLICE OFFICERS

CACHI -- Two police officers confirm having been followed by a
gigantic UFO for over one hour. The police officers left Cachi
at 3:00 AM, in car number 301, under the command of Sergeant
Daniel Humberto Flores age 40. They took route 33, and observed
a strange luminosity near the hills like a star, but much
bigger. They said, "It was 20 meters in radius and of intense
luminosity. It came by our side at about 300 meters distance
and accompanied us for well over one hour. First we were
curious, then we became excited, but finally we were victims of
terror: The ship placed itself in front of us on the road and
the car lights went out, the steering failed and the engine
went dead. It was almost 4 o'clock in the morning" related
Ramiro Corimayo, a 27 year old assistant constable. The event
took place two months ago in May," said Corimayo. "When we
heard that the local mountaineer Antonio Zuleta had filmed a
UFO we decided to reveal what we lived through. We saw the film
and ! in reality "the thing" was very similar." He stated, "The
persistent bursts of light that came from that luminosity and
gave out red, yellow, violet and green flashes of light.
Despite the light's power that lit everything it didn't blind
us. They stopped the car to determine its structure, but they
only saw a round light. Thanks to Kim Blanco
kxblanco@ctrl.co.uk, Source El Tribunoof, 7/17/01.
http://tribuno.salnet.com.ar/

PROVE UFOs EXIST BY WATCHING THE SKIES

Jeff Challender has been taping NASA missions from live NASA
Select TV, since September 1997. He has uncovered many
anomalies in space that stubbornly resist identification. NASA,
and other scientific organizations, have in the past, dismissed
ALL anomalies as ice crystals, and other small debris floating
near our craft. Joseph Held and Jeff have started Project Prove
to document some of these anomalies from independent sources,
and different vantage points. They are seeking volunteers to
use their own video cameras to tape the anomalies from the
ground. It would then be possible to show, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that something large, and out of the ordinary, was
accompanying our spacecraft in orbit. The best time to video
from the Earth's surface is during twilight. That is, after
sunset, and before sunrise. In daylight, spacecraft are
generally not visible from the ground. The Sun overwhelms them.
At night, they cannot be seen either. There is no source of
light! bright enough to make them visible to ground observers.
There is a fine website from Germany, known as Heavens Above,
which provides the exact dates, times, and brightness, and
direction, for twilight passes by hundreds of spacecraft and
satellites. From the main page, the user may select from a
database of cities and townsr. A person can find his or her
location, mark that page, and have these figures at fingertip
access at all times. The address is
http://www.heavens-above.com/ using the Heavens Above data, our
volunteers will be able to plan for the pass over his or her
home. Then it is as simple as setting up the home video camera
to record the pass on tape. I have done this myself, and it is
surprisingly easy. Doing this, we are hoping to catch the
occasional anomaly accompanying space vehicles. When this
occurs, and as past observations have shown, it will, we will
have not only a tape of the event from live NASA feed, but also
a recording from an earth based po! sition. Anomalies captured
in this way could not be dismissed as ice as tiny ice crystals
would be impossible to see from 200 miles away. A collection of
anomalous objects would provide undeniable evidence that could
be seriously examined by the scientific community Volunteer to
help today? Volunteering by e-mailing Jefchall@worldnet.att.net
Jeff is recovering from back surgery and we wish him a speedy
recovery.

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Les Wille called to claim something very strange was happening
abroad the International Space Station on July 19, 2001.
STS-104 delivered the Joint Airlock to the International Space
Station followed by bright pulsating lights. The five-member
STS-104 crew conducted three space walks to install and outfit
the airlock, which has been named Quest. The Joint Airlock is a
pressurized flight element consisting of two cylindrical
chambers, and on the outside, it is outfitted with four
high-pressure gas tanks -- two oxygen and two nitrogen tanks.
Quest allows space walks to begin and end in the station for
both US and Russian spacesuits. It also allows space walks to
be conducted without a shuttle present. A new multimillion
dollar Joint Airlock was installed on July 18th. Les was
looking at video from the Space station and noticed that near
the hand rail bar there was a metal plate and insulation
blanket that seemed out of place. It is a mystery why the
insulated white blanke! ts were over the joint Airlock and all
crumbled up. STS-104 Mission Specialists Michael Gernhardt and
James Reilly conducted the first space walk from Quest on July
20-21 and apparently repaired any problems. Thanks to Les
Wille.

LARGEST UFO CD-ROM IN EXISTENCE

The Black Vault has unveiled thousands of documents relating to
the UFO phenomenon. Some, have never been published in
electronic form, nor have other seen even the light of day.
Declassified in recent years, this CD holds over 5,000 pages of
material, covering the past half-century of government
involvement in the UFO field of research. From the CIA recently
declassified documents to the FBI. From the NSA to the DIA,
this CD has a fantastic archive, ready to browse with
high-resolution scans. Easily read and easily navigated, this
research tool will be used for years to come! To order, call
toll free, (866) 828-2858 or outside the continental US, (818)
886-0131. Or order online today, http://www.blackvaultstore.com

COLORADO MUFON CONFERENCE On Saturday, August 4th, Paola Harris,
a Freelance Journalist/Independent Researcher from Italy, will
be giving a special presentation about her latest research
discoveries. This event is free to the public and will be held
at the Gold Hill Police Station community meeting room 705
South Nevada, Colorado Springs, Co., at 2 PM. Her subject will
be: Towards UFO Disclosure 2001, Now is the Time to push for
disclosure! Thanks to State Section Director Edward Burke (719)
550-0942

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? See:
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 an autographed copy by sending a check or money order
for $13.95 (US) to: David Twich! ell, P.O. Box 511, Trenton MI.
48183-0511

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL for $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.


If you want to be removed form the list, you can unsubscribe
your email address from the same place you subcribed.
http://www.filersfiles.com/index.shtml#subscribe








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                          Carpenter, Reed & Podell?

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:20:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:49:27 -0400
Subject: Carpenter, Reed & Podell?


 >From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 21:13:50 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:25:15 -0300

 >>>From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:17:47 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>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

 >Ahhh, the old refrain. Reminds me of the time your erstwhile
 >ally in the Anderson affair, John Carpenter, lectured us about
 >the practice of "good science" which he, of course, was a
 >practicioner of, and we, by default, were not. After his
 >lecture, as you will recall, Carpenter finally felt compelled to
 >issue a public notice of non- support for Gerald Ander-son's
 >claims. If you recall, you and Don Berliner did the same. Why
 >did you do that?

Tom and the List,

Your remark on Carpenter reminds me of a little conversation I
had with him, at the Laughlin conference in March 2000. (that
was before the revelation of his sales of abductee files to
NIDS).

We were both in the hall while the speech of Jonathan Reed was
going on, because we did not want to listen to it. I told him
that I was very suspicious of that sort of story, keeping in
mind the risk, not only of a simple hoax, but more subtly of a
provocation/disinformation operation. In other words, a
hoax/debunking operation.

Carpenter smiled, and told me that it was probably the case for
Gerald Anderson. He had met with him recently and had been
impressed to find a man in excellent shape, sure of himself,
with the attitude of someone who has done his job well, who has
accomplished his mission.

Of course, this is just an impression, but it comes from a man
who defended him quite vigourously, as I recall, in the columns
of the MUFON UFO Journal.

BTW, I have just read Melvin Podel's message on the MUFON
Symposium, saying that it has led him to reconsider Dr Reed's
story.

I fell off my chair my chair!

Reed was not even one of the speakers.....

Melvin, why do you suddenly refer to Jonathan Reed's extremely
dubious story, to say the least, in a short comment on the
MUFON Symposium?


Hoping to get an answer,

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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:48:25 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:52:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement - Bourdais


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@Konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement
 >Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:01:25 -0400

 >After reviewing the publication 'Disclosure' that Dr. Steven
 >Greer has released, I found that Danial Sheehan's testimony
 >isn't included (or at least I can't seem to find it). This
 >surprises me, since he has become a major part of the Disclosure
 >Project.

 >It may be that he is a relatively new "witness" and hadn't been
 >interviewed in time for inclusion in the book, which was
 >obviously in production prior to the original Briefing in May.
 >But if anyone has insight that might shed some light on this, it
 >would be appreciated.


I think it is the explanation.

BTW, I recommend reading the last issue of the British UFO
Magazine, which gives the complete and faithful transcripts (I
verified that) of the twenty testimonies of the Disclosure
Project in Washington.

Well presented with a picture of each witness.

I know that writing the name of Dr Greer suffices to provoke
violent irritation on this List, but I would like to see some
positive comments on at least the most reliable witnesses, like
Robert Salas, to name only one.

Any comments?


Cordially,

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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                  Re: Science's Mything Links - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:22:56 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:55:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Science's Mything Links - Mortellaro


 >From: Steve Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Science's Mything Links
 >Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:13:25 -0400

 >Source: The Washington Post

 >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35319-2001Jul22.html

<snip>

 >After all, lots of theories have gone from mad to mainstream --
 >the Earth revolves around the sun

Dear Errol and the snot who wrote this abomination;

The entire monograph made wonderful reading.

Until I got to the above sentence. Then the writer lost me in a
momentary barrage of Swamp Gas, Venus and little Aley Inns.
Everyone knows that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Pelican guano yet again on UpDates.  Shame, shame, shame on you
Errol.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                      Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Haley

From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:39:13 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:59:09 -0400
Subject: Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Haley


 >From: Melvin Podell <mpodell@juno.com>
 >Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:44:18 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: MUFON 2001 Symposium

<snip>

 >Jaime Maussan in addition to his excellent UFO videos presented
 >further evidence in support of the controversial Dr. Jonathan
 >Reed entity case.

<snip>

 >Personally this conference has changed my views regarding the
 >Dr. Reed case which one time was thought to have little validity
 >but now has more credibility going for it.

I'm not surprised to hear such totally absurd comments from
someone associated with the San Diego MUFON. After all, other
members (e.g. Shawn Alanti) of the San Diego MUFON have
supported Reed's hoax since day one.

It only gets worse with Maussan's involvement. It turns out that
Maussan and his colleagues were promoting the Comet Hale-Bopp
companion hoax a few years ago. For further details, see:

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/garrido.html

Maussan's endorsement of Reed's tall tale does not give the
story credibility but actually adds to the non-credibility of
the story. The fact that MUFON enlists speakers like Maussan
also destroys their credibility.

I had thought of going to the conference until I saw that
Maussan was a speaker. Sadly, I'm becoming very cynical of many
self-proclaimed UFO experts. It is no wonder that the topic of
extraterrestrial visitation is laughed at by mainstream
scientists!


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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                          Secrecy News -- 07/24/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:27:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:28:22 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 07/24/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
July 24, 2001

**      INDONESIA AND CIA PORNOGRAPHY
**      WEN HO LEE BOOK UNDER REVIEW


INDONESIA AND CIA PORNOGRAPHY

"The people of Indonesia, by addressing their leadership crisis
under their Constitution and laws, have shown commitment to the
rule of law and democracy," said President George W. Bush
yesterday, referring to the inauguration of Mrs. Megawati
Sukarnoputri as the new Indonesian president.

But in the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency showed
somewhat less commitment to Indonesian law and democracy when it
attempted to undermine the regime of Mrs. Megawati's father,
President Sukarno, who was deemed pro-Communist.

As one memorable part of its campaign, the CIA produced a
pornographic film intended to discredit the Indonesian President
in the eyes of his people.

The story of the CIA porno film is told in "Portrait of a Cold
Warrior," the 1976 memoir of CIA officer Joseph Burkholder Smith
(pp. 239ff).

Based on reports that President Sukarno had been seen in the
company of a Soviet stewardess, Smith wrote, "our special
Sukarno committee was formed to accomplish ... the production of
a film, or at least some still photos, [purportedly] showing
Sukarno and his Russian girlfriend engaged in his favorite
activity."

"Exploiting Sukarno's sexual appetite in this way was a tricky
theme.  His conquests didn't disturb Indonesians too much....
However, what we were saying was that a woman had gotten the
better of Sukarno.  Being tricked, deceived, or otherwise
outsmarted by one of the creatures God has provided for man's
pleasure cannot be condoned," as the CIA understood Indonesian
culture.

"Also," Smith continued, "we were interested in the impact of
this theme outside Indonesia, for our purpose was to present
Sukarno in as unfavorable and unsympathetic light as possible.
If he were deposed by our friends the colonels, we wanted the
world to agree with us that Indonesia would be better off."

First, the CIA attempted to find a Sukarno lookalike in the
existing repertoire of pornographic films.  "Los Angeles's
supply of blue films suited our purpose, we thought, because
they included dark male subjects ... who might be made to look
like Sukarno with a little touching up."

When that didn't work out, "we decided that we would try to
develop a full-face mask of Sukarno.  We planned to ship this
out to Los Angeles and ask the police to pay some blue film star
to wear it during his big scene."

Smith writes that in the end, he "never tried" to make use of
the product of CIA's secret pornography initiative.  But author
John Ranelagh reports in his book "The Agency" that the
resulting anti-Sukarno porno film was entitled "Happy Days," and
that "still photographs were taken for distribution in the Far
East."

Despite the CIA's efforts, Sukarno remained in power until 1966,
when he was deposed by Suharto.  A volume of the official
"Foreign Relations of the United States" series on Indonesia,
1964-1968, is scheduled for publication in September.

A different sort of CIA venture into pornography was to be found
in the February 1997 issue of Playboy magazine, in which a CIA
employee identified as Jayne Hayden posed in various stages of
undress.  CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield confirmed to the
Washington Times (1/18/97) that Ms. Hayden had in fact been a
CIA employee until the previous year.  He complained that she
had failed to submit her materials for pre-publication review.


WEN HO LEE BOOK UNDER REVIEW

Wen Ho Lee, the former Los Alamos scientist once suspected of
espionage whose controversial arrest and nine month
incarceration culminated in a plea agreement and an apology from
the court, has completed a memoir of his experience.

The manuscript is now under review by government officials,
according to an Associated Press report by Richard Benke
yesterday.  The purpose of the review is to ensure that no
classified information is disclosed.

The publisher's announcement of the forthcoming book, entitled
"My Country Versus Me," may be found here:

http://www.hyperionbooks.com/books/2001fall/mycountryversus.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
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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                            Taming The Multiverse

From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:37:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:33:23 -0400
Subject: Taming The Multiverse


Source: The New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/quantum.jsp?id=22994400

14 July 2001

Taming The Multiverse

Marcus Chown

Parallel universes are no longer a figment of our imagination.
They're so real that we can reach out and touch them, and even
use them to change our world, says Marcus Chown

FLICKING through New Scientist, you stop at this page, think
"that's interesting" and read these words. Another you thinks
"what nonsense", and moves on. Yet another lets out a cry, keels
over and dies.

Is this an insane vision? Not according to David Deutsch of the
University of Oxford. Deutsch believes that our Universe is part
of the multiverse, a domain of parallel universes that comprises
ultimate reality.

Until now, the multiverse was a hazy, ill-defined concept-little
more than a philosophical trick. But in a paper yet to be
published, Deutsch has worked out the structure of the
multiverse. With it, he claims, he has answered the last
criticism of the sceptics. "For 70 years physicists have been
hiding from it, but they can hide no longer." If he's right, the
multiverse is no trick. It is real. So real that we can mould
the fate of the universes and exploit them.

Why believe in something so extraordinary? Because it can
explain one of the greatest mysteries of modern science: why the
world of atoms behaves so very differently from the everyday
world of trees and tables.

The theory that describes atoms and their constituents is
quantum mechanics. It is hugely successful. It has led to
computers, lasers and nuclear reactors, and it tells us why the
Sun shines and why the ground beneath our feet is solid. But
quantum theory also tells us something very disturbing about
atoms and their like: they can be in many places at once. This
isn't just a crazy theory-it has observable consequences (see
"Interfering with the multiverse").

But how is it that atoms can be in many places at once whereas
big things made out of atoms-tables, trees and
pencils-apparently cannot? Reconciling the difference between
the microscopic and the macroscopic is the central problem in
quantum theory.

The many worlds interpretation is one way to do it. This idea
was proposed by Princeton graduate student Hugh Everett III in
1957. According to many worlds, quantum theory doesn't just
apply to atoms, says Deutsch. "The world of tables is exactly
the same as the world of atoms."

But surely this means tables can be in many places at once.
Right. But nobody has ever seen such a schizophrenic table. So
what gives?

The idea is that if you observe a table that is in two places at
once, there are also two versions of you-one that sees the table
in one place and one that sees it in another place.

The consequences are remarkable. A universe must exist for every
physical possibility. There are Earths where the Nazis prevailed
in the Second World War, where Marilyn Monroe married Einstein,
and where the dinosaurs survived and evolved into intelligent
beings who read New Scientist.

However, many worlds is not the only interpretation of quantum
theory. Physicists can choose between half a dozen
interpretations, all of which predict identical outcomes for all
conceivable experiments.

Deutsch dismisses them all. "Some are gibberish, like the
Copenhagen interpretation," he says-and the rest are just
variations on the many worlds theme.

For example, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the act
of observing is crucial. Observation forces an atom to make up
its mind, and plump for being in only one place out of all the
possible places it could be. But the Copenhagen interpretation
is itself open to interpretation. What constitutes an
observation? For some people, this only requires a large-scale
object such as a particle detector. For others it means an
interaction with some kind of conscious being.

Worse still, says Deutsch, is that in this type of
interpretation you have to abandon the idea of reality. Before
observation, the atom doesn't have a real position. To Deutsch,
the whole thing is mysticism-throwing up our hands and saying
there are some things we are not allowed to ask.

Some interpretations do try to give the microscopic world
reality, but they are all disguised versions of the many worlds
idea, says Deutsch. "Their proponents have fallen over backwards
to talk about the many worlds in a way that makes it appear as
if they are not."

In this category, Deutsch includes David Bohm's "pilot-wave"
interpretation. Bohm's idea is that a quantum wave guides
particles along their trajectories. Then the strange shape of
the pilot wave can be used to explain all the odd quantum
behaviours, such as interference patterns. In effect, says
Deutsch, Bohm's single universe occupies one groove in an
immensely complicated multi-dimensional wave function.

"The question that pilot-wave theorists must address is: what
are the unoccupied grooves?" says Deutsch. "It is no good saying
they are merely theoretical and do not exist physically, for
they continually jostle each other and the occupied groove,
affecting its trajectory. What's really being talked about here
is parallel universes. Pilot-wave theories are parallel-universe
theories in a state of chronic denial."

Back and forth

Another disguised many worlds theory, says Deutsch, is John
Cramer's "transactional" interpretation in which information
passes backwards and forwards through time. When you measure the
position of an atom, it sends a message back to its earlier self
to change its trajectory accordingly.

But as the system gets more complicated, the number of messages
explodes. Soon, says Deutsch, it becomes vastly greater than the
number of particles in the Universe. The full quantum evolution
of a system as big as the Universe consists of an exponentially
large number of classical processes, each of which contains the
information to describe a whole universe. So Cramer's idea
forces the multiverse on you, says Deutsch.

So do other interpretations, according to Deutsch. "Quantum
theory leaves no doubt that other universes exist in exactly the
same sense that the single Universe that we see exists," he
says. "This is not a matter of interpretation. It is a logical
consequence of quantum theory."

Yet many physicists still refuse to accept the multiverse.
"People say the many worlds is simply too crazy, too wasteful,
too mind-blowing," says Deutsch. "But this is an emotional not a
scientific reaction. We have to take what nature gives us."

A much more legitimate objection is that many worlds is vague
and has no firm mathematical basis. Proponents talk of a
multiverse that is like a stack of parallel universes. The
critics point out that it cannot be that simple-quantum
phenomena occur precisely because the universes interact. "What
is needed is a precise mathematical model of the multiverse,"
says Deutsch. And now he's made one.

The key to Deutsch's model sounds peculiar. He treats the
multiverse as if it were a quantum computer. Quantum computers
exploit the strangeness of quantum systems-their ability to be
in many states at once-to do certain kinds of calculation at
ludicrously high speed. For example, they could quickly search
huge databases that would take an ordinary computer the lifetime
of the Universe. Although the hardware is still at a very basic
stage, the theory of how quantum computers process information
is well advanced.

In 1985, Deutsch proved that such a machine can simulate any
conceivable quantum system, and that includes the Universe
itself. So to work out the basic structure of the multiverse,
all you need to do is analyse a general quantum calculation.
"The set of all programs that can be run on a quantum computer
includes programs that would simulate the multiverse," says
Deutsch. "So we don't have to include any details of stars and
galaxies in the real Universe, we can just analyse quantum
computers and look at how information flows inside them."

If information could flow freely from one part of the multiverse
to another, we'd live in a chaotic world where all possibilities
would overlap. We really would see two tables at once, and
worse, everything imaginable would be happening everywhere at
the same time.

Deutsch found that, almost all the time, information flows only
within small pieces of the quantum calculation, and not in
between those pieces. These pieces, he says, are separate
universes. They feel separate and autonomous because all the
information we receive through our senses has come from within
one universe. As Oxford philosopher Michael Lockwood put it, "We
cannot look sideways, through the multiverse, any more than we
can look into the future."

Sometimes universes in Deutsch's model peel apart only locally
and fleetingly, and then slap back together again. This is the
cause of quantum interference, which is at the root of
everything from the two-slit experiment to the basic structure
of atoms.

Other physicists are still digesting what Deutsch has to say.
Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna remains unconvinced.
"The multiverse interpretation is not the only possible one, and
it is not even the simplest," he says. Zeilinger instead uses
information theory to come to very different conclusions. He
thinks that quantum theory comes from limits on the information
we get out of measurements (New Scientist, 17 February, p 26).
As in the Copenhagen interpretation, there is no reality to what
goes on before the measurement.

But Deutsch insists that his picture is more profound than
Zeilinger's. "I hope he'll come round, and realise that the many
worlds theory explains where the information in his measurements
comes from."

Why are physicists reluctant to accept many worlds? Deutsch
blames logical positivism, the idea that science should concern
itself only with objects that can be observed. In the early 20th
century, some logical positivists even denied the existence of
atoms-until the evidence became overwhelming.

The evidence for the multiverse, according to Deutsch, is
equally overwhelming. "Admittedly, it's indirect," he says. "But
then, we can detect pterodactyls and quarks only indirectly too.
The evidence that other universes exist is at least as strong as
the evidence for pterodactyls or quarks."

Perhaps the sceptics will be convinced by a practical
demonstration of the multiverse. And Deutsch thinks he knows
how. By building a quantum computer, he says, we can reach out
and mould the multiverse.

"One day, a quantum computer will be built which does more
simultaneous calculations than there are particles in the
Universe," says Deutsch. "Since the Universe as we see it lacks
the computational resources to do the calculations, where are
they being done?" It can only be in other universes, he says.
"Quantum computers share information with huge numbers of
versions of themselves throughout the multiverse."

Imagine that you have a quantum PC and you set it a problem.
What happens is that a huge number of versions of your PC split
off from this Universe into their own separate, local universes,
and work on parallel strands of the problem. A split second
later, the pocket universes recombine into one, and those
strands are pulled together to provide the answer that pops up
on your screen. "Quantum computers are the first machines humans
have ever built to exploit the multiverse directly," says
Deutsch.

At the moment, even the biggest quantum computers can only work
their magic on about 6 bits of information, which in Deutsch's
view means they exploit copies of themselves in 26
universes-that's just 64 of them. Because the computational
feats of such computers are puny, people can choose to ignore
the multiverse. "But something will happen when the number of
parallel calculations becomes very large," says Deutsch. "If the
number is 64, people can shut their eyes but if it's 1064, they
will no longer be able to pretend."

What would it mean for you and me to know there are
inconceivably many yous and mes living out all possible
histories? Surely, there is no point in making any choices for
the better if all possible outcomes happen? We might as well
stay in bed or commit suicide.

Deutsch does not agree. In fact, he thinks it could make real
choice possible. In classical physics, he says, there is no such
thing as "if"; the future is determined absolutely by the past.
So there can be no free will. In the multiverse, however, there
are alternatives; the quantum possibilities really happen. Free
will might have a sensible definition, Deutsch thinks, because
the alternatives don't have to occur within equally large slices
of the multiverse. "By making good choices, doing the right
thing, we thicken the stack of universes in which versions of us
live reasonable lives," he says. "When you succeed, all the
copies of you who made the same decision succeed too. What you
do for the better increases the portion of the multiverse where
good things happen."

Let's hope that deciding to read this article was the right
choice.

Multi-universe Interfering with the multiverse You can see the
shadow of other universes using little more than a light source
and two metal plates. This is the famous double-slit experiment,
the touchstone of quantum weirdness.

Particles from the atomic realm such as photons, electrons or
atoms are fired at the first plate, which has two vertical slits
in it. The particles that go through hit the second plate on the
far side.

Imagine the places that are hit show up black and that the
places that are not hit show up white. After the experiment has
been running for a while, and many particles have passed through
the slits, the plate will be covered in vertical stripes
alternating black and white. That is an interference pattern.

To make it, particles that passed through one slit have to
interfere with particles that passed through the other slit. The
pattern simply does not form if you shut one slit.

The strange thing is that the interference pattern forms even if
particles come one at a time, with long periods in between. So
what is affecting these single particles?

According to the many worlds interpretation, each particle
interferes with another particle going through the other slit.
What other particle?  "Another particle in a neighbouring
universe," says David Deutsch. He believes this is a case where
two universes split apart briefly, within the experiment, then
come back together again. "In my opinion, the argument for the
many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment. It reveals
interference between neighbouring universes, the root of all
quantum phenomena."

Further reading:

The structure of the multiverse by David Deutsch,
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104033
The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch, Penguin (1997)











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                         Alien Hunters See The Light

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@Konsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:07:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:44:34 -0400
Subject: Alien Hunters See The Light



This may be of interest to those who follow the exploits of SETI.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1455000/1455115.stm






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                  Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:10:41 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:46:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement - Hall


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:48:25 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@Konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheehan Disclosure Involvement
 >>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:01:25 -0400


 >BTW, I recommend reading the last issue of the British UFO
 >Magazine, which gives the complete and faithful transcripts (I
 >verified that) of the twenty testimonies of the Disclosure
 >Project in Washington.

 >Well presented with a picture of each witness.

 >I know that writing the name of Dr Greer suffices to provoke
 >violent irritation on this List, but I would like to see some
 >positive comments on at least the most reliable witnesses, like
 >Robert Salas, to name only one.

 >Any comments?

 >Cordially,

 >Gildas Bourdais

Gildas,

Robert Salas is an excellent witness whose testimony ought to be
heard. Unfortunately, his association with Greer and with some
not so credible witnesses will damage his credibility and cause
his testimony not to be heard, or at least not fully
appreciated.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

               Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:42:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:49:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Lehmberg


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
 >Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >A letter from this past Sunday's Star Ledger (NJ) may shed some
 >real light on the July 14-15 mystery lights:


<snip>

 >-----

 >I had earlier suggested that the lights may have been New Jersey
 >Army or Air National Guard aircraft dropping flares. This was a
 >Saturday night on a summer weekend. I think that it may be that
 >our old friends, "the Martians" or their colleagues, may be
 >flying some ultralights.


I'm astonished at the breadth, scope, and depth of your denial,
Dad. I have a recording of the video courtesy of MSNBC and with
two decades of military aviation experience I can report
confidently that that video did _not_ record the airplanes
reported by your suspect Star Ledger letter writer. You just
demonstrate your own ironic credulity regarding a crumbling
point of view you cling to that you must feel slipping beneath
your sweaty fingers even now.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                      Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:41:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:51:32 -0400
Subject: Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium - Sandow


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: MUFON 2001 Symposium
 >Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:22:47 +0200

 >>Budd Hopkins changed his intended lecture to focus on more
 >>witnesses to the Linda Cortile case.

 >Can you give us more data? I suppose the new lecture is _not_
 >included in the Proceedings. Is he going to write
 >about this new
 >development somewhere?


Budd indeed does have a new witness for the Linda case. This is
someone who says he saw, from the Manhattan Bridge, very much
what the witness Budd calls Janet Kimball said she saw from the
Brooklyn Bridge.

This new witness says he knows of others, including employees of
the New York Post who among other things say they remember a
night when a large number of black limousines were stopped under
the FDR Drive, at the point where Richard and Dan said their
motorcade halted. These further witnesses can't pinpoint the
date, but something like this would be rare.

I won't say anything more just now, and I certainly won't debate
this, simply because I don't know much more. I've had a phone
conversation with Budd about it. I hope to meet the main new
witness at some point, to check Budd's impressions. Budd will
write about it all, but I don't know when.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 25

              Re: heehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:18:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:57:56 -0400
Subject: Re: heehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Bourdais


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:34:39 -0000

 >>Hi Dick, hi All,

 >>You inquired:

 >>>Finally, does that snowy "crashed saucer" scene with soldiers in
 >>>parkas standing around it sound familiar to anyone?

 >>Yes it does. But oddly enough it isn't an "American" story! There
 >>was a program called, "The KGB Files" (I think it was narrated by
 >>actor Roger Moore, aka, 'The Saint') that documented a host of
 >>Russian UFO cases.

 >>One of the cases featured on the program was a saucer crash.
 >>They showed film footage of a small (maybe ten feet across) disc
 >>that had crashed near a tree-line and was upturned and partially
 >>covered in snow. There are many Russian soldiers in attendance
 >>and they are all wearing 'winter gear'. Hooded overcoats with
 >>the hoods lined in fur just as Dan Sheehan describes.

 >>The case (and the footage) were from the 60's so it's possible
 >>that Sheehan may have been looking at single frame captures from
 >>that Russian footage. Although I don't know how anybody could
 >>mistake those Russian military uniforms (some of the officers
 >>were wearing those "Big top" military hats that they use over
 >>there) for American military garb.

 >>It's the only case I can think of that fits the description
 >>provided by Sheehan. Unless somebody is aware or an identical
 >>case involving American military personnel, this Russian footage
 >>is the only thing that even comes close to what Dan Sheehan
 >>recalls seeing.

Hello, Richard, John and List

I suppose, John, your are saying that as a joke. I have informed
several times this list that Boris Shurinov had exposed the
so-called "KGB secrets" video as a total fraud. The sequences of
the crashed ufo and of the autopsy were shot by an American team
from Los Angeles, near Moscow for the crash, and at the Moscow
school of medecine for the autopsy. It's all explained on his
web site, in english, with colour pictures, at:

http://borshurinov.narod.ru/ufobusiness/ufobindex.htm

BTW, for those who are interested by the "hoax-debunking
scenarios" (the best way to debunk a hoax is to make it yourself
in the first place), this could well be one (the fact that
producers make money with it just add confusion and efficient
camouflage).

As an indication of this, who knows what became of the alleged
debris of the UFO that Kal Korff once claimed to have received?
I asked him recently on the Current Encounters list where it
came from, and he then shut up (something unusual on his part, I
have been told). Also, I met at the San Marino conference an
American producer-ufologist who told me he knew the film makers,
and that a friend of them was an intelligence agent. But,
"shut", don't dig into that!

 >
 >John,
 >
 >Bingo! When someone in Sheehan's mindset (thinking he is looking
 >at highly classified information despite all the clues to the
 >contrary) sees photos of a crashed saucer, he interprets it as
 >the real thing. Those of us who have actually plowed through the
 >Blue Book files know that it contains all sorts of newspaper
 >clippings, photo hoaxes, etc., as "background information." I
 >strongly suspect he has wrongly assumed things here.

Now the question becomes:

Does anyone remember if, at any time during the 50's
or the 60's, appeared in a tabloid a series of
photos showing a crashed flying saucer in the snow,
with American soldiers around, and close-ups of inscriptions?

Personally I doubt very much that it existed, because all
photographic frauds of these years have been used a hundred
times in debunking articles and books to ridicule ufos. If such
a series of fraudulent pictures had been circulated, we would
all know them!

In addition to that, if an article carrying such fake pictures
was in the BB archives, I suppose it would clearly appear for
what it was: a worthless paper clip.

(that's my own piece of "critical thinking").

Now, do we have rumors of a ufo crash in the snow?

Forget about the well known movie of the 50's, which does not
fit the description. Let's drop also the rumors about a
Spitsbergen Island crash in 1952, generaly considered to be a
hoax. There are other potential cases.

Kevin Randle, in his book "A History of UFO crashes", mentions
four cases of "ghost rockets" in Sweden in 1946, with his
verdict: "insufficent data".

Another source is the confidential letter of Brazilian Dr Olavo
Fontes, in 1957, to his friends of APRO, Jim and Coral Lorenzen.
He told them of revelations made to him by a couple of Brazilian
Navy intelligence officers, in order to convince him to give them
the Ubatuba fragments. They mentioned six crashes,
the last of them "Scandinavia".

I have very good reasons to believe that the letter is
authentic. So maybe there was a true crash in the snow!

Another of your critics concerns Sheehan's alleged asociation
with a kind of apologist of "Space brothers" by the name of
Michael Brownlee.

I have heard that he does not seem to fit exactly your depiction
of him. I have not checked, but according to a friend of mine,
that man wrote a rather negative article on the Greer Disclosure
project. Anyway, he has a website:

http://www.visibiliti.com

Could anyone bring some light on that?

The most difficult question, perhaps, remains:
how could possibly very secret archives have
been made visible, even very briefly, to a civilian
lawyer, without proper credentials, etc?

But are you quite sure that it is totally impossible?

Could there be some explanation for that?

The announced purpose was to give to a lawyer, preparing a
confidential discussion at JPL on theological aspects of Seti,
some information on UFOs. Is it possible that some brief release
of information would have been deemed appropriate, and granted
for that purpose?

Another, much more trivial explanation, would be a simple
mistake in manupulating the files: a few boxes were taken, which
should not have been there!

Another unsatisfying question is the silence of Marcia Smith.
Richar Hall said (message of July 15) that she probably had no
interest in ufos, and would not bother to answer questions:

Your message of July 15:

"One thing I do object to is the presumptuous conclusion that if
Marcia Smith doesn't answer, she is either (a) hiding something,
or (b) unable to answer because of security restrictions. This
is just so much self-serving nonsense. How about (c): As the
preponderance of evidence suggests, she is a UFO skeptic who
finds the whole topic a drain and she would rather have nothing
to do with this whole (in her view silly) exercise in totally
unfounded (as yet) claims".

I must have missed some things here, because I was under the
impression that, on the contrary, Marcia Smith had shown some
interest for the subjets of ET life and ufos. What is the
evidence for her lack of interest? The question seems to me to
remain very open. Obviously, there may be another reason for her
silence - she will not lie publicly!

Another question raised by Brad Sparks is: how could Sheehan see
through a cardboard backing to copy the symbols (post of July
17)? But Sheehan does not say that he looked trough it, he says
he put the pad under the screen and adjusted the picture to the
same size, thus making it as easy as possible to copy:

 >watching or anything. They were outside of the room, so I took
 >the yellow pad, and I flipped it open to the little grey
 >cardboard backing and I flipped it under the screen. I shrank
 >the size of the picture to the exact same size as the back of
 >the yellow pad, and traced the actual symbols out in detail,
 >verbatim of what was there.

Now about the possible role of President Carter. One of the main
critics remains that, it is rather absurd that President Carter
would have used such a small, "weak" channel for getting
information on ufos.

Seen from across the Atlantic, this does not look so obvious to
me. Brad Sparks notes that Carter was a strong President at the
beginning. He replaced DCI George Bush with Admiral Stanfield
Turner in March 1977, and Turner fired a number of CIA agents.
You add that he was hated for that! But what about information
on ufos? Did Turner, and Carter, get information on ufos?
Apparently, we don't know.

It seems to me that we have to grasp the full dimension of the
the problem of ufo secrecy, "two points higher than the H bomb"
said Dr Sarbacher to Wilbert Smith according to his notes. If
crashed ufos and occupants have been retrieved and studied, and
more than that if contacts have taken place, then it is is quite
clear that the people in charge of such fantastic secrets would
want to keep them very tightly. On the other hand, there may be
also some actions in the opposite direction, towards a gradual
release of secrecy. Could not this background explain certain
odd rumors and testimonies?

Now, back to the odd testimony of Daniel Sheehan, one point on
which I agree with the critics is that it's up to him to show
some documents. At least some correspondance about his contacts
with Marcia Smith, the Vatican, the JPL...

Best 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 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        New E-Mail Address For Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:47:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 07:22:57 -0400
Subject: New E-Mail Address For Velez


Hi All,

I have a new e-mail address: johnvelez.aic@verizon.net

Please make the appropriate changes to address books.

Due to a family emergency I will be unable to respond to any
posts until further notice. If anyone has written a response to
any of my posts and you are awaiting a reply, please be patient.
As soon as I'm able I'll be back and I'll address any questions
or comments you may have.


Thanx, my very best to you all,

John Velez









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                 Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young

From: Bob Young <BobYoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:37:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 07:23:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

 >A letter from this past Sunday's Star Ledger (NJ) may shed some
 >real light on the July 14-15 mystery lights:

John Velez replied, directly,

---

"Hi Bob,

Newark airport released a "general" statement to the press that
there was (no) air traffic (that they were aware of) in that area
on that night.

Whoever sent you this e-mail is mistaken.

Regards,

John

*PS - I'm dealing with a family emergency Bob. My mom is
critically ill. That is why I'm responding privately rather than
on the List. You have my permission to quote from my note to you
on the List if you wish. Because of the circumstances I will not
be able to carry on an ongoing dialog on List though.  JV"

---

John:

Ultralights usually don't file flight plans because they usually
return to the small strip where they took off and us Visual
Flight Rules. They also are too small and slow to show up on ATC
screens. It is not unusual for a large airport to not know about
these little puddle jumpers, particularly if they were flying at
night (not allowed by FAA rules).

It would be interesting to know it anybody has been able to
triangulate several witness accounts and determine the path and
location of whatever caused the lights.

Hope your mother is doing better.

Bob









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                     No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:17:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 07:28:14 -0400
Subject: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium


I attended the recent MUFON Symposium in Irvine, Calif., this
past weekend and found one very strange thing: There was
virtually nothing about Roswell at the conference, aside from
passing references.

There were almost zero Roswell books (about 5 copies of Stan
Friedman's UFO Crash at Corona). The largest book vendor was
dumbfounded when I asked where their Roswell books were. He
spent half an hour looking and was only able to come up with one
copy entitled 'Chinese Roswell'. Karl Pflock's new Roswell book
was nowhere to be seen.


Brad Sparks









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                       Alien Hunters Scan The Heavens

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:48:09 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 07:32:05 -0400
Subject: Alien Hunters Scan The Heavens


Alien Hunters Scan the Heavens


By ANDREW BRIDGES
.c The Associated Press


LOS ANGELES (AP) - Not content to just listen for aliens, a
group of California scientists has begun looking for them, too.

For years, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence -
commonly known as SETI - has focused on sifting through the
radio or microwave transmissions that stream toward Earth from
all quarters of the universe. By crunching the data, scientists
hope to detect signals generated by alien civilizations.

Now, scientists at the SETI Institute, the University of
California's Berkeley and Santa Cruz campuses and the Lick
Observatory have expanded their search to include a hunt for
fleeting flashes of laser light. Using a 40-inch telescope at
Lick, they are hunting for pulses as brief as one-billionth of a
second that emanate from star systems hundreds of light-years
away.

"It's a very long shot, but it's very inexpensive to do," said
Frank Drake, the SETI Institute's board chairman.

The optical hunt requires use of an existing telescope and about
$10,000 worth of equipment. In contrast, the group is building a
$26 million array to enhance its search for radio signals.

If the optical project does detect a pulse, it's not clear what
meaningful two-way communication could ensue. Laser pulses,
traveling at the speed of light, can take hundreds if not
thousands of years to travel between the stars.

"If you do get in touch, the conversation is going to be
tedious," said Seth Shostak, a SETI Institute astronomer.

The idea of hunting for alien laser pulses has been around for
40 years, or nearly as long as the laser itself. In the United
States, teams based at Harvard University, Princeton University,
Berkeley and in Columbus, Ohio, are conducting optical searches.

Unlike radio-focused efforts, a successful optical hunt would
require catching an alien civilization deliberately targeting
Earth with a laser beacon or pulse.

If radio SETI is listening for a shout from an individual in a
crowd, its optical counterpart is looking for a subtle wink.

"With radio, generally speaking, signals tend to spread out more
- you don't have to target your receiver. With optical
receivers, you have to know where the guy is on the other end,"
Shostak said.

The system installed at the Lick observatory uses three light
detectors, called photomultipliers, hooked up to its Nickel
Telescope.

The telescope is pointed at each candidate star for 10 minutes.
The light it gathers is then split and shuttled to each
detector. While light from the star itself can also trigger the
detectors, the number of photons, or light particles, from a
laser pulse would outnumber them 1,000-to-1, Drake said.

So far, the search has examined about 300 stars, as well as a
few star clusters. No alien laser pulses have been detected, but
the hunt will continue for at least the next year, hitting 1,000
stars.

On the Net:

SETI Institute: http://www.seti.org

AP-NY-07-25-01 0453EDT

Copyright 2001 The Associated Press.



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 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                         Fireball Leaves Burnt Rock

From: Steven L. Wilson <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:29:36 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 07:35:38 -0400
Subject: Fireball Leaves Burnt Rock


Experts: Fireball Leaves Burnt Rock


By MARTHA RAFFAELE
.c The Associated Press


HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - People looking for evidence of a meteoric
fireball that lit up the evening sky across the Northeast may be
able to find souvenirs of burnt rock, experts said Tuesday.

The bright lights and loud noises were reported from Virginia to
New York Monday evening. Experts said the cause was likely a
"bolide", a brilliant, exploding meteor.

"It may have broken up into a number of small pieces as it
entered the earth's atmosphere," said Charles Liu, an
astrophysicist with the American Museum of Natural History in
New York. "Most of the pieces would be smaller grains of sand,
just ash, but there may be some larger nuggets the size of ...
golf balls."

Most of the fireball's fragments probably descended near the New
York-Pennsylvania border; several witnesses there reported
hearing noises like sonic booms.

"Sonic booms mean that it's really close. The thing to look for
is dark rocks," said Ron Baalke, a software engineer at NASA's
Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

Often, meteors are hundreds of feet in diameter before the rock
burns up in the atmosphere, said Alexander Wolszczan, an
astronomy professor at Pennsylvania State University. But large
meteors can hit the earth.

The object appeared to be so close in Berkeley County, W.Va.,
that a deputy went into a field Monday to make sure it did not
start a fire, said Kenny Lemaster, of the county Sheriff's
Department.

"It just looked like a bright flare," he said.


AP-NY-07-24-01 1851EDT

Copyright 2001 The Associated Press.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                 Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:27:31 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 07:42:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - McCoy


 >From: Bob Young Y<oungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
 >Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >A letter from this past Sunday's Star Ledger (NJ) may shed some
 >real light on the July 14-15 mystery lights:


Or no light at all, whatever it was it was not Aircraft, at
least conventional aircraft -yes I am willing to say there
may be a prosaic reason!

 >-----

 >Logical Explanation

 >When I heard about the mysterious lights in Carteret, the first
 >thing I did was call my husband because he works at a data
 >center there. I figured maybe he would have a clue as to what
 >the mystery was about.
 >
 >Maybe he was the only one with a grip on reality. According to
 >my husband, the lights were nothing more than a group of planes
 >approaching the airport (Newark Airport, one on the 3 big in NYC
 >area - WTH) slowly and quietly. He said the planes flew by while
 >he was smoking a cigarette outside the building. He too was
 >intrigued by the mysterious lights when he first saw them, but
 >when they flew over the data center it became clear the lights
 >were airplanes.

A large formation in one of the busiest chunks of airspace at
night - no way at all. The FAA would be on the perps. Like flies
on a fresh Cowpie. Plus there are too many witness reports that
state otherwise, including the FAA. Bob have you ever been
there? Yeesh. Flying formation even military (it isn't done much
anymore) is dicey at best. Yes, I have flown formation in an
airshow and when I was an Airtanker pilot (you have to - to see
the leadplane) in the smoke and flame. Just some idiots tooling
around at night? Come on. I personally know a C-54 Tanker Crew
that was lost for a mere "Photo Op". Also, Bob,as I recall,
Newark didn't have any record of such flights.

This reminds me of the "Ultralight" theory with the Hudson
valley sightings. Given the state of ultralights, both
structurally and mechanically (mostly powered by high-strung,
and very unreliable two-stroke go-cart/snowmobile engines). Back
in the Eighties, night - let alone formation flying - would have
been very stupid, idiotic, Wile E. Coyote (Acme - a name you can
trust) off-the-mesa dumb.

I get damn' tired of people who claim pilots are out doing
dangerous things, or they are people don't know what they are
talking about. As in the orthodox priest, engineer, pilot who
witnessed the flares - see Flier's files, current issue. But of
course he is a religious fanatic and despite his engineering
(scientific) background and pilot training, his observation to
some is obviously flawed. Along with the video camera, cops, an
audience of 100's.

 >Human imagination is quite amusing. Perhaps some people need
 >drama in their lives.Maybe some lives are just so boring that
 >people need to fabricate stories about UFO's. The evidence is
 >clear. Let's be logical.

I haven't had a boring life, and this argument isn't Logical.


 >Carol Giroux,
 >Edison, [NJ]

 >-----

 >I had earlier suggested that the lights may have been New Jersey
 >Army or Air National Guard aircraft dropping flares. This was a
 >Saturday night on a summer weekend. I think that it may be that
 >our old friends, "the Martians" or their colleagues, may be
 >flying some ultralights.

See my reference to Ultralights above, also it is, ahem,
'illegal' to fly Ultralights at night, in controlled airspace,
over populated areas. Period. Although through the process of
natural selection, Ultralights have gotten somewhat more
reliable (like small four-strokes for engines) again, the
Federalies would have their collective genitalia hanging on the
flagpole of the local FAA office! None of what you are
describing is a haw haw game, but serious. Also, why the hell is
the military dropping flares over a heavily populated area?


GT McCoy

Hotter than a cheap revolver right now.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 27

               Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Pheneger

From: Jan M. Pheneger <jan0320@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:43:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:09:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Pheneger



Hi List ...

I have been reading, and studying the post comments made about
the New Jersey Lights.

Are there video, and pictures available for a analysis? Were any
pictures, videos obtained of these lights? From reading the
post, it is mentioned that there were.

FAA Regulations, as some may know, and some may not , carries a
very stiff fine, and pilots losing their licence to just "turn
off their lights." I do not buy the airplane statment made.
Sorry.

Even if per se, one aircraft lost its lights due to some
malfunction/defect, all the others would of not have done so,
simultaneously. This is nonsense!

Some seem to mention "Flares". A possibility, but evidence has
not yet been found.

I think that if videos, and pictures of the New Jersey Lights
can be examined and enhanced by experts - to see if smoke was
visible in the "flare" theory - we will all have a better
understanding of these lights. .

I do not buy the military flare explanation either. I have
friends in the National Guard, and one who is also a sheriff's
deputy. They do not drop flares over populated areas. One can
only imagine the liability issues if they did, and a innocent
civilian was hurt. Forget the nonsense explanations, and lets
see the videos and pictures that any witnesses have get turned
over to an expert for study. Then we can all derive our opinions
on the New Jersey Lights, based on an experts evaluation.


Respectfully,

Jan Pheneger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 27

              Re: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium - Johnson

From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:43:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:13:42 -0400
Subject: Re: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium - Johnson


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:17:08 EDT
 >Subject: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >I attended the recent MUFON Symposium in Irvine, Calif., this
 >past weekend and found one very strange thing: There was
 >virtually nothing about Roswell at the conference, aside from
 >passing references.

 >There were almost zero Roswell books


Brad,

Keep tuned! After three years of diligent study the
international RPIT (Roswell Photo Interpretation Team) is
diligently working on Report No. 2 ... and beyond! It will be
worth your wait!


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 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                 Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:11:24 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:40:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:42:19 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
 >>Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>A letter from this past Sunday's Star Ledger (NJ) may shed some
 >>real light on the July 14-15 mystery lights:


<snip>

 >I'm astonished at the breadth, scope, and depth of your denial,
 >Dad. I have a recording of the video courtesy of MSNBC and with
 >two decades of military aviation experience I can report
 >confidently that that video did _not_ record the airplanes
 >reported by your suspect Star Ledger letter writer. You just
 >demonstrate your own ironic credulity regarding a crumbling
 >point of view you cling to that you must feel slipping beneath
 >your sweaty fingers even now.

<snip>

 >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!

Al, List:

May John Ford live forever.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - Rutkowski

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:15:00 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:44:31 -0400
Subject: Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - Rutkowski


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:56:39 EDT
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: A Temporary Brain Disturbance - Rudiak

 >>A Temporary Brain Disturbance
 >>by Gail Kavanagh
 >>According to Canadian scientist Michael Persinger, believing you
 >>have been abducted by aliens or found God is the result of a
 >>"temporary brain disturbance".

 >>Our brains formed the word as well as the concept of paranoia.
 >>Just because it isn't there, doesn't mean it isn't out to get
 >>you. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to
 >>see it, can it still flatten your house? But Persinger has taken
 >>paranoia to a whole new level. Forget the CIA, the FBI and all
 >>those other initials, it's our damn brains we can't trust. Our
 >>brains are stuffing us around all over the place. They lie to
 >>us, convince us we have been probed by grey guys with radar dish
 >>eyes, have spoken to God, met Elvis in the frozen food aisle of
 >>the local supermarket, or fallen in love.

 >A few years ago I went down to the local university library and
 >did a literature search on Persinger. When I read the abstracts,
 >it quickly became obvious that this was pure schlock science,
 >and that's dignifying it.

Then you should have found my own articles, too. I published two
articles in the same psychology journals Persinger got his work
into. I pointed out numerous flaws in his studies and came to
the conclusion that his theory likely could _not_ explain simple
UFO reports, much less abductions. Persinger and his supporters
have chosen to arm-wave and dismiss my concerns. I even had
Persinger's own thesis avisor on my side, worried that he had
interpreted things way beyond the data.

 >In one of my past lives as a research scientist, I worked for a
 >few years with magnetic neuro-stimulators. These devices are
 >capable of inducing stimulation currents in the brain 7 or 8
 >orders of magnitudes greater than the feeble geomagnetic field
 >fluctuations Persinger claims can do all manner of things. Even
 >at the level of stimulation we (and others) were using, it turns
 >out to be extremely difficult to induce any sort of sensory
 >responses (motor responses are a lot easier).

Persinger argues that he uses alternating and rotating magnetic
fields in some of his experiments, and therefore he gets
responses where you didn't. I have been wondering whether
Persinger's own bias is influencing his results. His graduate
students all report experiences when subjected to his equipment,
so I wonder if there is an inherent bias towards reporting
positive results within his own laboratory. Susan Blackmore
reported slight effects, but then, she believed in the effect.
Jay Ingram was much more skeptical, and he had only a mild and
vague experience.

 >We were working in the visual cortex. At best, we got extremely
 >crude visual stimulation -- things like brief flashes of light,
 >maybe a simple geometric shape, but that's about it. There were
 >never any complex shapes, much less prolonged alien abduction
 >scenarios.

Persinger avoids the vsual cortex and goes right to the temporal
lobe. Again, he would argue there is a great difference there.

 >Persinger is pushing pure pseudo-science. That's all it is. The
 >only reason he has an audience in the scientific community is
 >that even among scientists, some would rather believe pure snake
 >oil explanations than consider the possibility that UFOs could
 >be real.

I would agree, and have raised this objection several times on
Updates and elsewhere. Curiously, some people, including
Devereux and others, criticised me for "not letting go" and for
"beating a dead horse." Hence, I haven't made any comments
during the past little while, during which Persinger has been
praised and given kudos in TV, radio and print. But since you
raised the issue yourself ...

 >Incidentally, this isn't an argument for the reality of alien
 >abductions, a field I know little about. It's me expressing
 >anger at crap "scientific" explanations that get taken
seriously >by people who should know a lot better.

Someone jabbed at me with that, too. They said that I didn't buy
into Persinger & Devereux's earth energy explainations for UFOs
because I was a "American" ufologist and therefore believed in
aliens. Sheesh. You can't win.


--
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 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                 Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:27:15 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:56:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:27:31 -0700

 >>From: Bob Young Y<oungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
 >>Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >I get damn' tired of people who claim pilots are out doing
 >dangerous things

I've seen them.

 >or they are people [who] don't know what they are
 >talking about.

Never claimed that, if fact I got the confirmation of what I had
seen from ultralight pilots who did it.

<snip>

 >it is, ahem, 'illegal' to fly Ultralights at night, in controlled
 >airspace, over populated areas. Period.

Yes?

G.T.: whether the N.J. lights were ultralights, fire balloons, a
miracle (I assign a low probability to that), or whatever, may
eventually be determined.

You are not the first pilot who has told me that ultralight
group flights in the dark have never happened, just because they
aren't supposed to.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                          Secrecy News -- 07/26/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:38:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:55:45 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 07/26/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
July 26, 2001

**BAMFORD REPLIES TO SECRECY NEWS
**NEW BARRIERS TO INTEL OVERSIGHT


BAMFORD REPLIES TO SECRECY NEWS

James Bamford, author of the bestselling book 'Body of Secrets',
angrily rebuked Secrecy News for a July 17 story that described
disputed points in his account of the 1967 Israeli attack on the
American surveillance ship U.S.S. Liberty. In a written
response, Mr. Bamford also provided an extended rebuttal to a
recent article about the Liberty in The New Republic.

The Secrecy News item was "a model of poor reporting", Mr.
Bamford wrote. Criticizing Mr. Bamford's work without affording
him the opportunity to reply "violates the most basic rule of
journalism."

Secrecy News apologizes for not having contacted Mr. Bamford for
comment.

In response to the assertion that there is no verifiable
evidence that mass murders of Egyptian prisoners of war took
place in 1967 which might have provided a motive for an Israeli
attack on the Liberty, Mr. Bamford cited abundant reporting in
the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other publications
indicating that Israeli soldiers killed hundreds of Egyptians.

Mr. Bamford agreed that linguist Marvin E. Nowicki, who had
recorded Israeli pilot communications during the attack,
believes the attack was an "error." Indeed, Mr. Bamford said, he
mentioned this fact explicitly in "Body of Secrets." But while
Mr. Nowicki is entitled to his opinion, he wrote, others who had
equal or greater access to intelligence data on the attack --
including the other Hebrew linguist aboard the U.S. surveillance
plane overhead -- concluded that it was deliberate.

Mr. Bamford noted that while he is an independent writer with
"no ties to either Israel or any organization involved with the
U.S.S. Liberty," the same cannot be said of Michael Oren, the
author of the New Republic article upon which Secrecy News
relied, who is an Israeli reserve officer and associated with a
right wing Israeli think tank. This association, in Mr.
Bamford's view, tends to nullify any claim to objectivity that
Mr. Oren may have.

"The principal mission of the center, where Mr. Oren is a senior
fellow, is the cause of extreme Jewish nationalism -- Israel for
the Jews -- i.e. apartheid," according to Mr. Bamford. As for
The New Republic, that magazine in his estimation has "long
[been] the U.S. propaganda arm of the Israeli far right."

"As an investigative journalist for nearly 25 years, I am never
bothered by attacks like those from [Secrecy News] -- it comes
with the territory," Mr. Bamford wrote. "What really disturbs me
is the speed with which certain people are willing to run to
Israel's defense while ignoring the heroic survivors of the USS
Liberty -- and the relatives of those killed -- who have been
pressing for a true, comprehensive investigation into the attack
for more than 34 years."

The full text of Mr. Bamford's response is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/bamford.html

A 1997 dissertation on the Liberty incident written by A. Jay
Cristol which reportedly concludes that the Israeli attack on
the U.S. ship was unwitting is slated for publication as a book
in March 2002.

A television program called "Cover Up: Attack on the U.S.S.
Liberty," will be broadcast on The History Channel on August 9.
"We examine crewmembers' contentions that the attack was
intentional and that both governments covered up the true
details," according to advance program notes.

A State Department spokesman said that the forthcoming volume of
the Foreign Relations of the United States that provides
official documentation concerning the Liberty "does not include
any intercepts or transcripts." Bamford, Nowicki and others have
called for the declassification and release of the transcribed
tapes of Israeli pilots' communications during the 1967 attack
on the Liberty.


NEW BARRIERS TO INTEL OVERSIGHT

Twenty four years after the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence was established in 1977, a new House rule could
significantly curtail the scope and effectiveness of
congressional oversight of intelligence.

According to a little-noticed amendment to the House Rules
adopted on January 3, "The Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence is to have exclusive oversight responsibility over
the sources and methods of the core
intelligence agencies." See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_cr/hres5.html#intel

and

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_cr/hres5.html#intel2

This new rule was invoked for the first time by Director of
Central Intelligence George J. Tenet last week as justification
for his refusal to participate in an hearing convened by the
House Committee on Government Reform.

Thus, congressional oversight of intelligence, which is already
subject to far-reaching limitations, is being further
diminished.

The new House rule is "wholly inconsistent with the compromise
which led to the creation of the intelligence committees," noted
Morton H. Halperin, now senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations. Mr. Halperin, who served in numerous national
security functions in and out of government, played an
influential role in the formulation of intelligence oversight
policies in his former capacity as director of the Center for
National Security Studies.

That original compromise permitted the establishment of the
intelligence committee on condition that the existing
jurisdiction of other committees would be fully preserved.

Specifically, the 1977 House Rule XLVIII that established the
House Intelligence Committee stated clearly: "Nothing in this
rule shall be construed as prohibiting or otherwise restricting
the authority of any other committee to study and review any
intelligence or intelligence-related activity to the extent that
such activity directly affects a matter otherwise within the
jurisdiction of such committee."

Curiously, in response to a probing question from Rep. Henry
Hyde, House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier said on the
House floor January 3 that the new rule "is not meant to
circumscribe in any way, shape, or form the oversight or
legislative jurisdiction" of Mr. Hyde's Judiciary Committee.
See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_cr/hres5.html#hyde

But if the new rule was not meant to circumscribe other
committees' jurisdiction in any way, it is hard to understand
what it means or why it was adopted in the first place.
Intelligence Committee staffers contacted by Secrecy News
declined to comment on the subject.

In any case, in apparent contradiction to Rep. Dreier's
assurances, the new rule has already curtailed oversight in the
House Government Reform Committee.

Members of the Government Reform Committee met with the Speaker
of the House last Thursday to discuss the new challenge to their
jurisdiction, a Committee spokesman said. There was no immediate
resolution of the issue.

The intrinsic limits on Congressional oversight of intelligence
-- involving shortages of personnel, time, resources, and
Members' attention as well as a lack of independent sources of
information -- were described with unusual frankness by Mary K.
Sturtevant in the Summer 1992 issue of American Intelligence
Journal, published by the National Military Intelligence
Association. Though dated in some respects, Ms. Sturtevant's
article identifies the basic structural barriers to oversight
that will only be exacerbated by the new House rule. See
"Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: One Perspective" here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/sturtevant.html

Earlier this month, Ms. Sturtevant was appointed Special
Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence
Programs, National Security Council staff.


_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:  www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                       Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

From: Grant Cameron <SQQUISHY@altavista.com>
Date: 27 Jul 2001 03:59:12 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:27:18 -0400
Subject: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3


Records of the Clinton Administration Related to UFOs and
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Part 3

"What is truth?"
             -- Pontius Pilot addressing Jesus of Nazareth

The OSTP files showed that 1995 brought with it some new ideas
to advance the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The Human Potential
Foundation, for example, hosted an international conference:

When Cosmic Cultures Meet in late May.

Speakers at the Conference were asked to address the
"implications, preparations, and response for the time when
either or both interdimensional and extraterrestrial cultures
come into open contact with cultures of Earth.

The OSTP files document Scott Jones' invitations to a whole list
of people including Jack Gibbons, Hillary Clinton, and President
Clinton. Gibbons in his appeal was asked to include in his
address comments that "the subject is researchable,, should be
considered by competent researchers, and that the government
will make data available to support the research." None of the
three White House invitees accepted the offer. If there was
support inside the White House for extraterrestrials, it wasn't
going to be open support.

In a February 9, 1995 letter Jones mentioned that for some
reason he had been searched out by two sources, and leaked a
couple of explosive facts. Jones was told that the "Lincoln Lab
has been the site of most of the government research on this
subject," and from a separate source the fact that "there are on
average 400 monthly uncorrelated space events detected by the
U.S. Space Command."

"I suspect that anyone who is active in this field cannot avoid
being used by assorted interests who have a particular passion
for their point of view," continued Jones. "While this
information seems plausible based upon other information I know.
I have made no attempt to confirm these statements and do not
intend to pass them along even as rumor."

"There are two areas of sadness on this subject, continued
Gibbons. "The first is the government's bodyguard of lies around
it, and the second is the attempt by some (perhaps even some
parts of the government) to cloak it in evil. Nature is not
evil."

The February 9th letter also indicated that the game plan had
changed for the Rockefeller team on the "UFO Initiative". Jones
indicated some disappointment in how the UFO Initiative had gone
so far. "It appears," Jones wrote, "after Laurance's last
meeting with you that we are not going to get feedback on our
attempts to get the White House to open the books on this
subject. Neither Laurance nor I need any encouragement or credit
for what we have been trying to accomplish. We have done what we
thought was reasonable and needed. For my own part I am shifting
my energy on this subject to a new, supportive strategy."

Jones hinted that the new approach might center on a "public
relations approach" to force the information out. Jones reminded
Gibbons that this possibility had been mentioned by Rockefeller
at their first meeting. Jones outlined the possibilities. "He
(Rockefeller) can afford a rather aggressive and expensive
effort implementing that strategy, e.g., full page ads in major
newspapers."

The U.S.A.F. had closed down their investigation into Roswell in
September 1994. The OSTP files show, however, that in 1995 the
Government Accounting Office (GAO) investigation into Roswell,
initiated by Congressman Steven Schiff,  was still in process.
In April Gibbons was contacted by the GOA and asked  1)whether
your office has an knowledge of what occurred at Roswell, and 2)
what if any, government records or information your office has
concerning this matter.

Gibbons who had now spent two years looking into Roswell,
following  his first meeting with Rockefeller in April 1993,
wrote back with a disappointing report.


In response to your recent inquiry of April 12, 1995. The Office
of Science and Technology reviewed its records regarding the
Roswell Incident. OSTP has no direct knowledge of what occurred
at Roswell and no records, except for the information I received
from the Air Force. I look forward to receiving the GAO report.


The Farley Letters

One of the most revealing documents in the entire Clinton OSTP
UFO collection is a set of two letters sent by C. Richard Farley
Jr. The letters were sent on April 28, and May 1, 1995. Both
were requests for documents. One was addressed to Dr. Gibbons,
and one was addressed to the Commander of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Both were sent Certified U.S. Mail/ Return receipt Req. The
letter addressed to Dr. Gibbons was answered, but that reply
does not appear in the OSTP files.

Letter 1

The April 28, 1995 is by far the most important of the two
letters. This is because Farley attached documents that are not
found in the OSTP package. Secondly, he refers to other
documents  that also are not to be found in the OSTP UFO files.
This clearly indicates that the OSTP collection, as big as it
is, might be only the tip of the iceberg. The Farley letter must
have sent Clinton officials racing to plug the holes Farley had
just opened.

Richard (Dick) Farley, as mentioned previously, was an award
winning investigative writer, who was hired by the Human
Potentials Foundation. In connection with the Rockefeller White
House UFO briefing initiative, Farley was the one who wrote the
"Matrix of UFO Beliefs" that was used during the first April
1993 briefing of Dr. Gibbons. Farley was also the author of  the
"Annotated Bibliography" that Scott Jones provided to Gibbons
following the initial briefing.

Farley provided many of the UFO books that were provided to
Gibbons following the first briefing to bring him up to speed on
the UFO issue. Finally, Richard Farley was the member of the
Rockefeller Initiative, who on the date of the second face to
face meeting with Gibbons (February 4, 1994), broke with the
Rockefeller team and made his own UFO approach to the White
House. Farley sent three packages of material into the White
House through Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of
Staff Philip Lader. This material said Farley "eventually
brought the Rockefeller UFO Initiative at least to Mack
McClarty, then Chief of Staff to the President."

Of all the documents attached to the Farley letter, the most
revealing is a transcript of a phone interview between Scott
Jones at the Human Potential Institute and Dr. Ronald Pandolfi
at the CIA "discussing Pandolfi's (and CIA's) role in supporting
Gibbons' response to the Rockefeller 'UFO' Initiative."

Farley wrote in his April 28, 1995 letter to Gibbons that Scott
Jones' former executive assistant told him "Jones routinely
'bugged' Pandolfi's calls." Farley further stated that the
attached transcript was given to him by Jones "for purposes
which were not clear to me then, nor presently; I sent it to the
FBI and CIA months ago."

The transcript is important because of timing and personality.
It was dated April 15, 1993, the day after Laurance Rockefeller
and  Scott Jones first sat face-to-face with Science Advisor
Gibbons to brief him on the UFO situation. It therefore gives
clear insights about how the whole "Rockefeller UFO Initiative"
to the White House began.

The key personality involved in preparing for the briefing - Dr.
Ronald Pandolfi - points to the fact that the initial
Rockefeller briefing was taken seriously, and that key CIA
people were apparently counseling Clinton's Science Advisor on
the UFO topic.

Dr. Pandolfi, worked for the CIA's Directorate of Science and
Technology. Pandolfi was described by The American Spectator as
"the CIA's highest ranking scientist."

The fact that this high ranking CIA scientist and agent phoned
Scott Jones on the day of the briefing indicated that the CIA
may have been trying to feel out what Rockefeller was up to, or
they were attempting to aid Rockefeller at someone's bequest.

According to the transcript of the April 15th telephone call,
Pandolfi told Jones"

"We (CIA) had been tasked a couple of days before the proposed
visit of Laurance Rockefeller with the White House Science
Advisor, to provide a briefing update to him - and we didn't do
that. Instead we tasked our friend Dr. Maccabee to do it. He did
an excellent job... Gibbons said that he had gotten a one page
input from Rockefeller indicating what the subject was going to
be, and he didn't have any background on it, claimed that he had
never heard of MJ-12, or things like that, and so he contacted
our representative over there and asked whether we could provide
some support."

Jones, who stated he had not seen the Maccabee briefing paper,
asked Pandolfi why the CIA didn't do the briefing itself.

Pandolfi replied, "We didn't have the material here to do it on
that short of notice, didn't have any reference material in the
file records, and Bruce had already taken a shot on something
fairly similar."

This claim about lack of reference material in the files of the
CIA is strange in light of what Pandolfi's predecessor
Christopher C. "Kit" Green told Bruce Maccabee in 1979. Kit had
apparently stated that the CIA files may contain as many as
15,000 UFO-related files, of which two or three thousand were
really interesting.

Both Dr. "Kit" Green and Dr. Ronald Pandolfi had each been in
charge of what has come to be known as the "Weird Desk" at the
CIA where all the UFOs files are kept. Maccabee termed the job
done by these two men as the "Keeper of the Weird." Kit Green,
in fact, had long been rumored to be qualified to brief
Presidents on the UFO issue, taking over the job that was held
for many years by CIA agent Arthur Lundahl. Back in the
eighties, researcher Bill Moore described Kit Green as " a
person close to the President of the United States, capable of
checking on information to determine its reliability."

Not only was Green qualified to brief the President, Dick Farley
maintained that Ronald Pandolfi had stated that "Kit had been
brought in to brief the President.(Clinton)"  Pandolfi in a
later discussion denied that President Clinton was briefed by
"Kit" Green. "I have no reason," stated Pandolfi, "to believe
Kit ever briefed Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky,
Jack or any other frequent visitor to the White House on the
issue of UFOs.

Dick Farley also maintained that "Kit" Green was brought in to
brief Dr. Gibbons as soon as it was learned that Rockefeller
would be coming to the OSTP to present his case for UFO
disclosure. Farley stated,

The REAL briefing of Dr. Jack Gibbons was conducted by Dr.
Christopher "Kit" Green... for the record, both Ron Pandolfi and
Kit Green have confirmed to me that Kit did come in and brief
Dr. Jack Gibbons, a result of Laurance Rockefeller's effort to
get UFO disclosure on the agenda."


In the Jones/Pandolfi phone transcript Pandolfi added further
detail to the Maccabee UFO briefing done for Dr. Gibbons. "We
helped him (Maccabee) on it and he did a fairly professional job
like you would do a briefing for a President. He had one and a
half pages of bulletized notes, and then tabs going back to
paragraphs on each of the main points, and then further tabs
going back to the original source material."

Maccabee, however, contends that he received no help from
Pandolfi or anyone else in writing the briefing book titled
"Briefing on the U.S. Government Approach to the UFO Problem as
Determined by Civilian Researchers During the Last Twenty
Years."

I had no help. Pandolfi called me up at home. Said it is needed
tomorrow morning by 8 AM. So I planned what I was going to say,
including the "tab references" and then wrote the first page and
a half executive summary and sent that. Subsequently I sent the
tabs. There was exactly no input from Pandolfi or anyone else.

Further in the transcript, Jones asked Pandolfi what feedback
Maccabee had gotten to his briefing. Pandolfi replied, "Bruce
was not at the briefing so he knows nothing at this point."

Jones then asked if Jack Gibbons had seen Maccabee's briefing
prior to himself and Rockefeller presenting their UFO briefing.
Pandolfi responded that Gibbons had read the UFO briefing book
prepared for him.

He supposedly had. He got it the night before, and he claimed he
read it either the night before or early that morning. Kit was
supposed to meet with Jack yesterday and supposed to give us
some guidance today if there is any additional follow-up or his
reactions were.

This statement differs radically from a statement Pandolfi made
in an E-mail comment in November of 2000. In this version of the
story Pandolfi stated Gibbons had not read the Maccabee briefing
book.

Bruce delivered the briefing book to Jack the following morning
before his meeting with Rockefeller. My understanding is that
Jack gave the briefing document to Rockefeller. I have no reason
to believe Jack read the briefing book or made a copy."


Bruce Maccabee, the author of the briefing book, provided yet a
third story of what happened. He stated that he worked all night
on the briefing, having been given less than a day to produce
it. He finished it just before the 8 am deadline he had been
given. He faxed the briefing to Dr. Gibbons' office, and found
out later from Pandolfi that his briefing had not been used. The
Rockefeller briefing had started early and was ending just as
Maccabee's briefing book was arriving by fax in Dr. Gibbons
office.


The one thing every version of the April 14, 93 briefing agrees
on is that Jack Gibbons was not keen on the UFO subject.
Pandolfi in the April 15th telephone call with Jones said, " My
guess is that he (Gibbons) is not going to do anything. He
seemed to be fairly adverse to this whole subject."On the other
end of the phone, Scott Jones agreed,

What he told me, I've known Jack for eight years, I was not
surprised at what he told us during the time we spent with him.
He said he had no information on this, no personal knowledge,
and was not read into it, doesn't know the literature. I think
that is a true statement. My assessment is that he was not at
ease with the subject when we were talking about it. That also
did not surprise me. He declared to us that he was an agnostic,
that if there was some evidence there he would be glad to look
at it. But at this point he has no knowledge of such evidence.


In the November 2000 E-mail, Pandolfi was even more blunt about
Gibbons attitude on the day of the initial Rockefeller briefing.
Speaking of his personal involvement in the first briefing
Pandolfi said,

I had one and only one conversation with Jack on the issue of
UFOs. Jack asked why in the world someone like Rockefeller would
believe in such nonsense. My response was that only a fellow
believer could answer such a question.

The transcript in the OSTP files reveals that Pandolfi and Jones
agreed to work together. Pandolfi sent over a copy of the
Maccabee briefing book. Jones stated he would like to see it, as
he was in the process of putting together some additional
material for Gibbons.

If Jones did provide the Maccabee briefing book to Gibbons it
did not appear in any of the Jones correspondence to Jack
Gibbons. It also was not part of the 1993 OSTP files after being
received by fax in the OSTP office. Maccabee did even recover a
copy of the briefing when he filed a FOIA for it in July 1996.

The records seem to show that there were possibly three briefing
1) One done by "Kit" Green on April 13; one done on April 14th
by Laurence Rockefeller and Scott Jones using "The Matric of UFO
Beliefs" briefing; and a briefing done by Bruce Maccabee that
may have been read by Dr. Gibbons. Yet, there were absolutely no
official record in OSTP files of these briefing having taken
place.

A copy of the Maccabee briefing finally became part of the OSTP
UFO files in January 1977 when Maccabee attached a copy of it to
letter addressed to Dr. Gibbons. He wrote to Gibbons,

In April 1993, at the request of Dr. Ronald Pandolfi of the CIA.
I sent (faxed) you an information paper regarding UFOs...  In
that briefing paper I presented evidence that the government has
collected a rather large number of documents on UFO sightings.
Moreover, one could easily conclude from these documents that
the government has sufficient evidence to prove that many UFOs
are, in fact, neither natural phenomena nor misidentified
artifacts of human creation...  .i.e., are apparently artifacts
of non-human origin (so called flying saucers). A copy of this
document is enclosed in case you have lost the previous one.

Another key document attached to the April 29, 1995 Farley
letter, is a draft of a letter from Scott Jones to Dr. Gibbons
dated April 30, 1993 just after the first Gibbons briefing. No
such letter could be found in OSTP file received in my FOIA.
This means that the letter was never sent, or it was pulled from
the files for some reason.

The letter is an important one. In it Scott Jones details the 18
UFO books that the Foundation came up with to bring Gibbons up
to speed on the UFO issue.

The letter also describes four letters (attached to the Jones
April 30 draft) concerning the Clinton Administration and UFOs.
These letters have been rumored, and this Jones draft confirms
they exist. They were not attached to the letter that Farley
sent to Jones. The Jones draft letter describes the letter as:

1) Melvin Laird to Secretary of Defense Designee Les Aspin,
January 8, 1993, requesting a review of classified space
programs with the intent to declassify some of the materials.

2) Melvin Laird to Laurance Rockefeller, January 28, 1993, in
which he states that Defense Secretary Aspin feels that the
issue should be coordinated through the office of the
president's Science Advisor.

3) Les Aspin to Melvin Laird, January 14, 1993, acknowledging
that he had received the letter on the classification issue.

4) A draft of a letter from Laurance Rockefeller to President
Clinton requesting that he take action on the UFO issue.
Attached to the letter was "Potential Estimates of the
Situation" which appeared to early version of the Matrix of UFO
Beliefs.

In addition to these letters wrote Jones, "there have been
private conversations between these principals and others that
have been more direct to the specific issue than the words in
the letter suggest."

Finally, the April 29, 1995 Farley's letter attaches three other
letters which further the idea that there is much more to be
found than the 991 pages in the OSTP files. These are

C       One of the letters Richard Farley received from Philip
Lader, Assistant to the President and deputy Chief of Staff.
Lader was Farley's source inside the White House. On the letter
Lader makes a handwritten comment, "Remarkable thoughts !"

C       Another letter from Melvin Laird to Laurance Rockefeller
where he states of the UFO secrecy issue, "it is government-
wide policy which needs to be changed."

C       A letter from Scott Jones to Laurance Rockefeller dated
almost a year before the White House UFO Initiative thanking
Rockefeller for his financial support, and promising that the
foundation will "focus on research into the existence of UFOs
and the possibility of tapping into the universal power grid."

This third letter also discusses a possible meeting between
three billionaires Laurance Rockefeller, Robert Bigelow, and
Hans-Adam Liechtenstein to discuss funding of UFO research.

Letter 2

The second Farley letter found in the OSTP was dated May 1,
1995. It was a letter that was actually addressed to the
Commander of the U.S. Coast Guard. It was only a single page
with one attachment. The attachment was two pages from a study
done for the U.S. Coast Guard titled The Road to 2012: Looking
Towards the Next Two Decades. This futuristic report was written
by John L. Petersen of the Arlington Institute.

The enclosure referenced a futurist "Wild Card" scenario
postulated by John Petersen. ("Official Contact is Made with
Extraterrestrials"). The importance of this scenario appearing
in a study done for the Coast Guard, and possibly paid for by
taxpayers, was it's link to CSETI Director Dr. Steven Greer, who
was using Petersen as one of his key military advisors. Farley
wrote of the important connection,

People claiming association with Mr. Petersen, and who also are
quite deeply involved in a professed public campaign claiming to
be about "making contact with extra-terrestrials" have cited
this report, and Mr. Petersen's asserted 'high-level government
contacts" in their soliciting of private funding in support of
this group's alleged "Project Starlight." Billed as an effort to
persuade U.S. citizens that contacts with "ETs" in "UFOs" are
either imminent or have been made, this group also has been
positioning itself to play an "international role" managing
public responses. This subject organization is based in North
carolina, and calls itself CSETI, (Committee to Study
Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. . . CSETI has received funding
from Laurance Rockefeller."

Interestingly, Farley's letter concerning Dr. Greer and John
Petersen was sent at exactly the same time that Dr. Greer was
writing a memo to President Clinton. Greer was writing the
President "requesting a meeting with relevant Administration as
soon as possible." In addition, Dr. Greer wrote seeking White
House cooperation in a project that he and Laurance Rockefeller
were working on.

CSETI, Mr. Laurance Rockefeller, Astronaut Gordon Cooper, as
well as several other prominent astronauts and military figures
will be convening a meeting of witnesses on June 2, 3, 4, 1995,
and we invite the Administration to send an observer or
participant to this meeting."

This meeting of high quality witnesses (Asilomer Conference) is
never mentioned in the OSTP files, even though the conference
was financed by Laurance Rockefeller. Dr. Steven Greer, who had
gathered the witnesses together,  is also never directly
mentioned in the OSTP files  which is strange in light of the
numerous contacts that Dr. Greer had inside the White House.
Rumors circulated on the Internet that Dr. Greer had indeed
provided two briefing to Science Advisor Dr. Gibbons.

The references to Greer briefing Gibbons may have been a
reference to Rockefeller and Jones doing the briefing as a part
of the Greer team It seems had to believe Greer would move to
brief Gibbons when he knew Rockefeller was doing the same thing.
A reference to Gibbons in Greer's May 1995 Memo to President
Clinton does make one think about the Greer role in the Clinton
OSTP.

Please find enclosed several documents previously conveyed to
the Administration via the Director of Central Intelligence
(James Woolsey), the President's Science Advisor, and Mr. Bruce
Lindsey.

On June 4, 1995, the 24 Participants of the Asilomar Conference
wrote a letter to President Clinton asking "that the appropriate
members of the Administration meet with members of the Project
Starlight Coalition... that the President issue an executive
order to release U.S. government witnesses from their national
security obligations/oaths related the subject (UFOs). . . and
that the President issue an executive order to declassify and
release currently classified materials, documents and evidence
related to the subject. . ."

There were now at least three major efforts focused at the White
House 1) Rockefeller's Disclosure Group 2) Richard Farley and 3)
Dr. Steven's Greer's group. Each group was making contact with
their contacts inside the White House. Each group was writing
letters and presenting evidence to support their case.

These contacts and letters, like many before, did not break the
logjam and release the classified UFO information. With these
drawbacks in mind Laurance Rockefeller patience had worn thin.
He prepared himself to go directly to the 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 >
   Jul > Jul 27

               Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@Konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:20:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:30:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Kaeser


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:18:14 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >Now about the possible role of President Carter. One of the main
 >critics remains that, it is rather absurd that President Carter
 >would have used such a small, "weak" channel for getting
 >information on ufos.

 >Seen from across the Atlantic, this does not look so obvious to
 >me. Brad Sparks notes that Carter was a strong President at the
 >beginning. He replaced DCI George Bush with Admiral Stanfield
 >Turner in March 1977, and Turner fired a number of CIA agents.
 >You add that he was hated for that! But what about information
 >on ufos? Did Turner, and Carter, get information on ufos?
 >Apparently, we don't know.

I think it's pretty clear that President Carter wasn't really
trusted by some at the Pentagon, which was underscored by his
release of information pertaining to the Stealth aircraft
program. I believe that Carter had been appraised of that line
of research (which was still denied in public at the time) and
he later forced it into the open. It remains true that
classified information is released on a "need to know" basis,
and given the scope of some information I'm not sure who defines
that "need". The recent establishment of "plausible deniability"
as a fixture in American politics has also helped to create an
atmosphere where leaders think in general terms, while those
below them work out the details.

 >It seems to me that we have to grasp the full dimension of the
 >the problem of ufo secrecy, "two points higher than the H bomb"
 >said Dr Sarbacher to Wilbert Smith according to his notes. If
 >crashed ufos and occupants have been retrieved and studied, and
 >more than that if contacts have taken place, then it is is quite
 >clear that the people in charge of such fantastic secrets would
 >want to keep them very tightly. On the other hand, there may be
 >also some actions in the opposite direction, towards a gradual
 >release of secrecy. Could not this background explain certain
 >odd rumors and testimonies?

 >Now, back to the odd testimony of Daniel Sheehan, one point on
 >which I agree with the critics is that it's up to him to show
 >some documents. At least some correspondance about his contacts
 >with Marcia Smith, the Vatican, the JPL...

Two days before the May 9th event, I joined several others in
dining with Daniel Sheehan and Steven Bassett at a local
resturant. Bassett was interested in seeking support from some
of the 'Old Guard' in Ufology for for the Disclosure Project,
but quickly learned that Dr. Greer's involvement and methodology
was a barrier that couldn't easily be overcome. But Sheehan
positioned himself between the two positions, and expressed an
understanding for each of them. He did not take one side or the
other and understood why it was difficult to accept some of the
witness testimony wihtout evidence or provenance to back it up.
We learned about his investigation into UFOs for the Carter
Administration, but he didn't mention anything about his alleged
visit to the Madison Buildingg to view UFO documents nor any of
the other facets that have now become rather controversial.

In looking at Dr. Greer's publication 'Disclosure', it should be
noted that Daniel Sheehan's testimony is not included. I would
have to guess that he was a late addition to Dr. Greer's effort,
and the book was already on the way to the printer. But, from
what I can gather, his talk at the MUFON Symposium didn't shed
any additional light on this matter, and was more of a
philosophical talk than one of substance. He apparently did not
remain for the traditional question and answer period, but I'm
not sure how that was handled at this event.

If anyonoe has more detail on his talk, and how it might releate
to the issues at hand, I would be interested in hearing their
views.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 27

             Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young, Kenny

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:30:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:33:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young, Kenny


 >From: Jan M. Pheneger <jan0320@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:43:52 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >I do not buy the military flare explanation either. I have
 >friends in the National Guard, and one who is also a sheriff's
 >deputy. They do not drop flares over populated areas. One can
 >only imagine the liability issues if they did, and a innocent
 >civilian was hurt. Forget the nonsense explanations, and lets
 >see the videos and pictures that any witnesses have get turned
 >over to an expert for study. Then we can all derive our opinions
 >on the New Jersey Lights, based on an experts evaluation.


Hi Jan;

The flare situation is not a nonsense explanation. These things
do happen and hotshot or rookie pilots disregard MOA (Military
Operations Area) boundary and time restrictions. To my knowledge
there has never been any public clarification afforded by the
culprits themselves. I have documented examples of several
violation episodes that generate UFO sightings, later explained
when the culprits were 'tracked down' during later
investigation.

I would further liken the situation to the 'mystery boom'
phenomena where officialdom denies having jet aircraft breaking
the sound barrier when people complain about the mysterious
noises heard across the country. Due to the property damage
often reported after a mystery boom, their denial of having any
of their pilots responsible for breaking the sound barrier makes
sense in the face of legal issues that would bog things down. As
you stated above, liability issues are a factor. But in the end
game, we see from past cases (such as Ohio in '96 and '97,
Evansville, Indiana in '98 and the Arizona sightings w/Maryland
A.N.G.) that the flare-spewing culprits are a little hesitant
about stepping forward and don't usually do so without a fight.


Take care,

KENNY









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                 Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 08:21:05 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:36:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - McCoy


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:27:15 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:27:31 -0700

 >>>From: Bob Young Y<oungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
 >>>Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >>I get damn' tired of people who claim pilots are out doing
 >>dangerous things

 >I've seen them.

 >>or they are people [who] don't know what they are
 >>talking about.

 >Never claimed that, if fact I got the confirmation of what I had
 >seen from ultralight pilots who did it.

 ><snip>

 >>it is, ahem, 'illegal' to fly Ultralights at night, in controlled
 >>airspace, over populated areas. Period.

 >Yes?

 >G.T.: whether the N.J. lights were ultralights, fire balloons, a
 >miracle (I assign a low probability to that), or whatever, may
 >eventually be determined.

 >You are not the first pilot who has told me that ultralight
 >group flights in the dark have never happened, just because they
 >aren't supposed to.




Bob and the rest,

Here is the bottom line: if you know who these weasels, klowns,
idiots are, then you have an obligation to report them. They are
endangering human life both on the ground and in the air. A
family in their Cessna 172, a Chartered highschool football team
in a King Air, A 737 on long final to Newark, all are endangered
by these 'Martian' klowns, not to mention the thousands on the
ground.

Having spent 25years in Aviation, and instructing for ten of
them, I do not take these idiots lightly. I have also seen what
foolishness can do-death is usually the result.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 27

              Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young, Bob

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:21:13 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:37:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young, Bob


 >From: Jan M. Pheneger <jan0320@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:43:52 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >FAA Regulations, as some may know, and some may not, carries a
 >very stiff fine, and pilots losing their licence to just "turn
 >off their lights."

Ultralight pilots and ultralight airplanes are unlicensed,
although they are _supposed_ to fly under FAA Regs.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 27

               Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 18:23:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:43:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Lehmberg


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:11:24 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:42:19 -0500

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
 >>>Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>A letter from this past Sunday's Star Ledger (NJ) may shed some
 >>>real light on the July 14-15 mystery lights:

 ><snip>

 >>I'm astonished at the breadth, scope, and depth of your denial,
 >>Dad. I have a recording of the video courtesy of MSNBC and with
 >>two decades of military aviation experience I can report
 >>confidently that that video did _not_ record the airplanes
 >>reported by your suspect Star Ledger letter writer. You just
 >>demonstrate your own ironic credulity regarding a crumbling
 >>point of view you cling to that you must feel slipping beneath
 >>your sweaty fingers even now.

 >Al, List:

 >May John Ford live forever.

 >Clear skies,

 >Bob Young


Mr Young,

I remark, civilly, on your ironic credulity, and you
_mock_ me regarding my concern for a man that well might be
innocent of any crime? Is that all you've got? Let me remind
you that Ford was diligently investigating his accuser, John
Powell, a wheel in the local political machine. A year or so
after Ford's suspicious incarceration, John Powell pled no
contest to _significant_ racketeering charges in Suffolk County,
NY... John Powell could bear _no_kind_ of investigation, and
that is why John Ford was set up to take the fall for the most
imaginary crime _never_ committed!

Add cognitive dissonance (along with your ironic credulity) to
an expanding list of things to regret later. Ford is very likely
innocent, and it's been over ten years since they locked him in
that unjust hole... have a _good_ laugh.....

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

~~~~
EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros URL.
http://www.alienview.net


JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention he
gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail. $350.00 pledged
-- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see
from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by
the scurrilous.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                New Article: Wormhole-Stargates by Eric Davis

From: Colm Kelleher <NIDS@lb.bcentral.com>
Date: 27 Jul 2001 23:42:52 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:45:39 -0400
Subject: New Article: Wormhole-Stargates by Eric Davis


National Institute for Discovery Science

A new article has been posted to the NIDS website,
"Wormhole-Stargates: Tunneling Through The Cosmic Neighborhood,"
by NIDS Astrophysicist Eric Davis.

The article was recently presented by Dr. Davis at the MUFON
2001 International UFO Symposium in Irvine, CA.

Click here for the article and slides from his presentation:

www.nidsci.org/articles/articles3.html

Comments on the article should be sent to: ericdavis@nidsci.org

NIDS has also updated the New Jersey Sighting Report with
additional eyewitness testimony:

www.nidsci.org/news/newjersey_contents.html

Comments on the New Jersey Sighting 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 >
   Jul > Jul 27

             Re: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 02:02:57 +0200
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:49:31 -0400
Subject: Re: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium - Goldstein


 >From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:43:29 EDT
 >Subject: Re: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:17:08 EDT
 >>Subject: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>I attended the recent MUFON Symposium in Irvine, Calif., this
 >>past weekend and found one very strange thing: There was
 >>virtually nothing about Roswell at the conference, aside from
 >>passing references.

 >>There were almost zero Roswell books

 >Brad,

 >Keep tuned! After three years of diligent study the
 >international RPIT (Roswell Photo Interpretation Team) is
 >diligently working on Report No. 2 ... and beyond! It will be
 >worth your wait!

 >James Bond Johnson

Hi Bond,

I can't wait for Report No.2 to come out. The original report of
the debris photos showed markings so alien to me that I never
could begin to figure them out. Maybe I need new reading
glasses.


Happy trails,
Josh Goldstein

Past long time MUFON member - I terminated last year for reasons
that were illustrated by this year's conference, er circus
sideshow












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                         NASA 'Contact-Like' Fiction

From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 02:17:33 +0200 (CEST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:41:52 -0400
Subject: NASA 'Contact-Like' Fiction


Today on German TV VOX, a program about the Apollo Hoax was
aired, similar to the FOX one. However, they also included a
strange "War of the Worlds" like made pseudo-documentary about
an ET-signal detected on July 23, 1997.

The same signal, an encoded PI, was found by the "Mogul-Ballon"
on July 4, 1947 in Roswell, as a fictional USAF Major Howard
Alexander, told. Some other names from this fiction, produced by
NASA as a what-if scenario: Greg Silverman, Sheryl Davis, Don
Merrick, Bill Gregory, Dr.Jane Lascells.

Who has information about this movie? I couldn't find _anything_
on the Net about it!

--
    Holger Isenberg
    H.Isenberg@ping.de
    http://mars-news.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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

              Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Balaskas

From: nikos <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:29:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:44:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Balaskas


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:18:14 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:34:39 -0000

<snip>

 >As an indication of this, who knows what became of the alleged
 >debris of the UFO that Kal Korff once claimed to have received?
 >I asked him recently on the Current Encounters list where it
 >came from, and he then shut up (something unusual on his part, I
 >have been told). Also, I met at the San Marino conference an
 >American producer-ufologist who told me he knew the film makers,
 >and that a friend of them was an intelligence agent. But,
 >"shut", don't dig into that!

<snip>

Hi everyone.

We had a showing of the very interesting and highly entertaining
TNT TV documentary 'Secret KGB UFO Files' at one of our MUFON
Ontario meetings at York University back in 1998. I contacted
Kal Korff after he received fragments allegedly from the same
UFO crash shown in this documentary (see URL below for some
pictures of these fragments) and he agreed to having me do
independent tests here. I never did get anything from Kal. Does
anyone know if Kal published something about these UFO fragments
which he found so intriguing or know who gave them to him?

http://www.rense.com/ufo/fragments.htm

 >>Bingo! When someone in Sheehan's mindset (thinking he is looking
 >>at highly classified information despite all the clues to the
 >>contrary) sees photos of a crashed saucer, he interprets it as
 >>the real thing. Those of us who have actually plowed through the
 >>Blue Book files know that it contains all sorts of newspaper
 >>clippings, photo hoaxes, etc., as "background information." I
 >>strongly suspect he has wrongly assumed things here.

<snip>

 >Does anyone remember if, at any time during the 50's
 >or the 60's, appeared in a tabloid a series of
 >photos showing a crashed flying saucer in the snow,
 >with American soldiers around, and close-ups of inscriptions?

<snip>

 >Forget about the well known movie of the 50's, which does not
 >fit the description. Let's drop also the rumors about a
 >Spitsbergen Island crash in 1952, generaly considered to be a
 >hoax. There are other potential cases.

<snip>

I was able to find a Web site with a picture of a scene similar
to what Daniel Sheehan described seeing. It is from the 1951
movie 'The Thing From Another World' (see URL below). Is Richard
Hall suggesting that the photo Daniel saw was just Blue Book
"background information" such as this crashed saucer from the
1951 movie which he mistakened for the real thing? Although the
saucer in this movie is embedded in snow/ice and is surrounded
by American personnel (much like the saucer in the 'Secret KGB
UFO Files' TV documentary), I did not notice any inscriptions on
it.

http://www.badmovieplanet.com/3btheater/t/thingfromanotherworld.html

Fortunately, Daniel still has a sketch of the inscription on the
crashed saucer made when he saw the photo in his files. We were
able to match the mystery picture of a triangular stealth
aircraft in Holger Isenberg's post to UFO UpDates with an artist
rendering of the Stealth Bomber as it appeared on the February
1986 cover of 'Discover' magazine. So let us now have a look at
Daniel's sketch of the saucer inscription and see if it matches
something from "background information" or something that has
already been reported by other UFO eyewitnesses rather than just
continue to speculate.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

               Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 03:50:58 +0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:46:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Goldstein


 >Date: 27 Jul 2001 03:59:12 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: Grant Cameron <SQQUISHY@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

 >Records of the Clinton Administration Related to UFOs and
 >Extraterrestrial Intelligence Part 3

 >"What is truth?"
 >             -- Pontius Pilot addressing Jesus of Nazareth

 >The OSTP files showed that 1995 brought with it some new ideas
 >to advance the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The Human Potential
 >Foundation, for example, hosted an international conference:

 >When Cosmic Cultures Meet in late May.

 >Speakers at the Conference were asked to address the
 >"implications, preparations, and response for the time when
 >either or both interdimensional and extraterrestrial cultures
 >come into open contact with cultures of Earth.

 >The OSTP files document Scott Jones' invitations to a whole list
 >of people including Jack Gibbons, Hillary Clinton, and President
 >Clinton. Gibbons in his appeal was asked to include in his
 >address comments that "the subject is researchable,, should be
 >considered by competent researchers, and that the government
 >will make data available to support the research." None of the
 >three White House invitees accepted the offer. If there was
 >support inside the White House for extraterrestrials, it wasn't
 >going to be open support.

 >In a February 9, 1995 letter Jones mentioned that for some
 >reason he had been searched out by two sources, and leaked a
 >couple of explosive facts. Jones was told that the "Lincoln Lab
 >has been the site of most of the government research on this
 >subject," and from a separate source the fact that "there are on
 >average 400 monthly uncorrelated space events detected by the
 >U.S. Space Command."

 >"I suspect that anyone who is active in this field cannot avoid
 >being used by assorted interests who have a particular passion
 >for their point of view," continued Jones. "While this
 >information seems plausible based upon other information I know.
 >I have made no attempt to confirm these statements and do not
 >intend to pass them along even as rumor."

 >"There are two areas of sadness on this subject, continued
 >Gibbons. "The first is the government's bodyguard of lies around
 >it, and the second is the attempt by some (perhaps even some
 >parts of the government) to cloak it in evil. Nature is not
 >evil."

<snip>

Hello Grant,

In the last paragraph I quoted above from your fascinating
account did Gibbons or Jones make that statement?


Thanks,

Josh Goldstein













   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 28

               Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:02:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:53:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Lehmberg


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:27:15 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:27:31 -0700

 >>>From: Bob Young Y<oungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
 >>>Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >>I get damn' tired of people who claim pilots are out doing
 >>dangerous things

 >I've seen them.

Of course you have, and in so doing you have let your
experiential microcosm occlude your non-experiential macrocosm
(probably on purpose). What Mr. McCoy is telling you is that the
overwhelming trend is for pilots _not_ to do "dangerous things."
He's not saying they _never_ do, he's saying that the smart
money says they _seldom_ do. They don't _stay_ pilots long if
they do.

I'm a pilot with no small experience! Would you except my
testimony? I'd bet not! Why? Because my data does not go where
_you_ want to go. Did you think you were a scientist? You're
not. You're a dogma apologist, doing more harm than good.

 >>or they are people [who] don't know what they are
 >>talking about.

 >Never claimed that, if fact I got the confirmation of what I had
 >seen from ultralight pilots who did it.

This tiny bit of corroboration does not prove the rule, Mr.
Young. It remains that weird and unexplainable stuff flies our
skies with anomalous impunity. Colorado, Indiana, New Jersey...
You're fledgling explanations of these are dust in the wind, and
what's more they have a timid quality belying the courage that
you think you display by acting 'rational' on this List of open
minded individuals. Sometimes the multi-verse won't get in line
for you... get over it.

 ><snip>

 >>it is, ahem, 'illegal' to fly Ultralights at night, in controlled
 >>airspace, over populated areas. Period.

 >Yes?

Such arrogance! Like you've proved _anything_! These little
verbal droppings (composed of moldy straw) only weaken what was
already a baseless two-color argument. <Bailiff!>

 >G.T.: whether the N.J. lights were ultralights, fire balloons, a
 >miracle (I assign a low probability to that), or whatever, may
 >eventually be determined.

 >You are not the first pilot who has told me that ultralight
 >group flights in the dark have never happened, just because they
 >aren't supposed to.

This does not explain the ridgidity of the formation, the
silence of it, nor that so many different witness were
astonished by it. And while it may be true that one ultralight
won't paint a significant return, I'd bet a flight of them
flying in formation, _would_.


 >Clear skies,

You have a faulty definition for clarity, I'm guessing.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                 Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 05:22:25 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 11:02:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Hale


 >From: YoungBob2@aol.com
 >Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
 >Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >A letter from this past Sunday's Star Ledger (NJ) may shed some
 >real light on the July 14-15 mystery lights:

 >Logical Explanation

<snip>

 >Human imagination is quite amusing. Perhaps some people need
 >drama in their lives.Maybe some lives are just so boring that
 >people need to fabricate stories about UFO's. The evidence is
 >clear. Let's be logical.

 >Carol Giroux,
 >Edison, [NJ]

 >I had earlier suggested that the lights may have been New Jersey
 >Army or Air National Guard aircraft dropping flares. This was a
 >Saturday night on a summer weekend. I think that it may be that
 >our old friends, "the Martians" or their colleagues, may be
 >flying some ultralights.


Hi Bob,

Good to see your pores are still open. Hey, thank you for the
explanation, that 'people see planes', great inventions.

Obviously the secrets of a great fun and fulfilled life is
within her. Has she written any books on how not to be boring and
fabricate stories about UFOs? The evidence is very clear... and
have we solved the UFO mystery?

Good day to you old boy!


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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:54:59 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:40:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - McCoy


Hello all,

I have been uninvolved in the Utlralight aircraft movement since
it's inception - I have a hard time with something that is a
throwback to those, killing er, thrilling days of yesteryear,
Iron men and wooden ships and all that.

It has been put forth on this List that there is an active group
of fools who fly these crates at night - information yet - and I
ask, how is it done? No aircraft is completely silent, let alone
one of those little buzzy things. And a group of them at night?
By the nature of small engines, both two and fourstroke, they
need to be as unrestricted as possible, i.e. little muffling.
Hence sound, like a chainsaw or weed-eater, in the air. There is,
to my knowledge, no system of muffling that is 100/50 or 40%
capable of muffling a small engine in those conditions.

Also, these small engines are notoriously unreliable - the two
strokes in particular, get the fuelto oil mix wrong and you
either seize up or foul the plug quickly. The result? An
unintentional landing. Add night, formation flying, over
populated areas, and if you barf an engine, you are going to
land where you don't want to - buildings, trees, houses, the
Daisy Hill Rottewiler Farm. Range is a factor too. Some are
barely capable of a 1.5 hr endurance. Got headwinds?

Now, how about the little buzzy's airframes? Most are either
steel and aluminum tube with a Dacron-type covering on the wing.
No electrical system with which to fire off the lights, so you'd
have to bring your own battery generator. (Yes there are some
who have electric start and a rudimentary electrical system.)

But there is one big problem - the nature of the Operations
described.

At night, over a populated area such as the Newark airport
environs plus the presence of Newark itself. You don't operate
in that type of environment unless you are flying very low or
you are talking to someone. Like Newark approach for example.
You're an idiot to do otherwise. The Federal Aviation
Administration would be very interested in this sort of
activity. They - the Feds - know where they live, too. Is there
any field that would support ulitralights? How many? Is the bank
of batteries and lights exceeding the max weight of the
category?

Now about formation flying. I've actually done it several times.
I had this hot rock ex-fighter jock (his own words) teach some
of our student pilots how to fly formation. This was at a little
flight school in Washington State. As I was just a schmuck
Flight Instructor I didn't count. He took three of his finest
20hr. students in individual aircraft (he did have the smarts to
make sure all were in the same type; the American /Grumman TR-2)
and by George, he _did_ it! They learned little about real world
ops, but the key was plane to plane communication by radio. In
the old days, it was hand signals. Hard to do at night. If there
was a large formation - or even a small one - someone has to be
leader. This gets very interesting without communication. If you
communicate by anything electronic, someone's listening.

So, there you have it. My two bits on why it is highly doubtful
that ultralights are "Hoaxing " UFO's at night.


GT McCoy

P.S. Has there been spectral analysis started - that won't tell
the tale to some but might be 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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                 Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:01:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 13:11:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 03:50:58 +0200
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

 >>Date: 27 Jul 2001 03:59:12 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: Grant Cameron <SQQUISHY@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

 >>Records of the Clinton Administration Related to UFOs and
 >>Extraterrestrial Intelligence Part 3

 >>"What is truth?"
 >>           -- Pontius Pilot addressing Jesus of Nazareth

 >>The OSTP files showed that 1995 brought with it some new ideas
 >>to advance the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The Human Potential
 >>Foundation, for example, hosted an international conference:

 >>When Cosmic Cultures Meet in late May.

<snip>

 >>"There are two areas of sadness on this subject, continued
 >>Gibbons. "The first is the government's bodyguard of lies around
 >>it, and the second is the attempt by some (perhaps even some
 >>parts of the government) to cloak it in evil. Nature is not
 >>evil."

 ><snip>


 >In the last paragraph I quoted above from your fascinating
 >account did Gibbons or Jones make that statement?


Hello Josh:  ( good to hear from you.)

Can you, or anyone else, tell me and others in 50 words or less
what the Clinton, OSTP, Sheehan etc., etc., is all about; and
whether its worth reading 1.0% of the reams sent about it?

As soon as an email gets over 2KB I have a tendency to filter it
out as a rant.


Any short, sharp help appreciated

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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

              Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton s<kywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 28 Jul 2001 10:54:59 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 14:15:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hamilton


 >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:29:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:18:14 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:34:39 -0000

 ><snip>

 >>As an indication of this, who knows what became of the alleged
 >>debris of the UFO that Kal Korff once claimed to have received?
 >>I asked him recently on the Current Encounters list where it
 >>came from, and he then shut up (something unusual on his part, I
 >>have been told). Also, I met at the San Marino conference an
 >>American producer-ufologist who told me he knew the film makers,
 >>and that a friend of them was an intelligence agent. But,
 >>"shut", don't dig into that!

 ><snip>

 >Hi everyone.

 >We had a showing of the very interesting and highly entertaining
 >TNT TV documentary 'Secret KGB UFO Files' at one of our MUFON
 >Ontario meetings at York University back in 1998. I contacted
 >Kal Korff after he received fragments allegedly from the same
 >UFO crash shown in this documentary (see URL below for some
 >pictures of these fragments) and he agreed to having me do
 >independent tests here. I never did get anything from Kal. Does
 >anyone know if Kal published something about these UFO fragments
 >which he found so intriguing or know who gave them to him?

 >http://www.rense.com/ufo/fragments.htm

 >>>Bingo! When someone in Sheehan's mindset (thinking he is looking
 >>>at highly classified information despite all the clues to the
 >>>contrary) sees photos of a crashed saucer, he interprets it as
 >>>the real thing. Those of us who have actually plowed through the
 >>>Blue Book files know that it contains all sorts of newspaper
 >>>clippings, photo hoaxes, etc., as "background information." I
 >>>strongly suspect he has wrongly assumed things here.

 ><snip>

 >>Does anyone remember if, at any time during the 50's
 >>or the 60's, appeared in a tabloid a series of
 >>photos showing a crashed flying saucer in the snow,
 >>with American soldiers around, and close-ups of inscriptions?

 ><snip>

 >>Forget about the well known movie of the 50's, which does not
 >>fit the description. Let's drop also the rumors about a
 >>Spitsbergen Island crash in 1952, generaly considered to be a
 >>hoax. There are other potential cases.

 ><snip>

 >I was able to find a Web site with a picture of a scene similar
 >to what Daniel Sheehan described seeing. It is from the 1951
 >movie 'The Thing From Another World' (see URL below). Is Richard
 >Hall suggesting that the photo Daniel saw was just Blue Book
 >"background information" such as this crashed saucer from the
 >1951 movie which he mistakened for the real thing? Although the
 >saucer in this movie is embedded in snow/ice and is surrounded
 >by American personnel (much like the saucer in the 'Secret KGB
 >UFO Files' TV documentary), I did not notice any inscriptions on
 >it.

I asked Daniel Sheehan if the photos he saw were a match or
similar to the KGB film.  He said _no_.  He has seen this film
and said what he saw did not even resemble what was shown.

Then I asked if it could be from the movie, "The Thing from
Another World" - NO, again, as he knows the movie.

Please come up with another candidate as he denies either of
these resembles what he saw in the photos.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <SQQUISHY@altavista.com>
Date: 28 Jul 2001 11:34:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:10:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Cameron


 >Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 03:50:58 +0200
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

 >>Date: 27 Jul 2001 03:59:12 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: Grant Cameron <SQQUISHY@altavista.com>
 >>Subject: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

 >>Records of the Clinton Administration Related to UFOs and
 >>Extraterrestrial Intelligence Part 3

 >>"What is truth?"
 >>          -- Pontius Pilot addressing Jesus of Nazareth

 >>The OSTP files showed that 1995 brought with it some new ideas
 >>to advance the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The Human Potential
 >>Foundation, for example, hosted an international conference:

 >>When Cosmic Cultures Meet in late May.

 ><snip>

 >Hello Grant,

 >In the last paragraph I quoted above from your fascinating
 >account did Gibbons or Jones make that statement?

Hello Josh

My mistake Josh. The statement was made by Jones not Gibbons as
I have it written.

Gibbons was never positive on UFOs. For example, in Gibbons'
memo to President Clinton written days before Laurance
Rockefeller briefed Clinton at the Ranch in Wyoming Gibbons
wrote.

"You will probably see Mr. Rockefeller on your vacation in the
Tetons. He will want to talk with you about his interest in
extrasensory perception, paranormal phenomena, and UFOs. . .I
persuaded Rockefeller to not bother you with this issue
(Roswell) but instead to let me talk to defense officials to see
if there was anything to the story. . .Rockefeller may thank-you
for the openness of the Administration, including his ability to
work with me. . .He knows that we are trying to be more helpful
in resonding to his concerns about UFOs and human potential - -
and that we are trying to keep an open mind about such matters-
- but I've made no secret about my conviction that we must not
be too diverted from more earthly imperatives."

In many ways Gibbons acted as a protective service to keep the
issue from Clinton. That is part of the reason that Rockefeller
did the briefing at his former ranch in Wyoming rather than in
Washington. Almost none of Clinton's people were at the ranch
for the briefing done during Clinton's 1995 August holiday. Not
even the Press Secretary was there.

Grant










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 28

              Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:54:37 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:22:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Mortellaro


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:02:09 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:27:15 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:27:31 -0700

 >>>>From: Bob Young Y<oungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:56:55 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >><snip>

 >>>I get damn' tired of people who claim pilots are out doing
 >>>dangerous things

 >>I've seen them.

 >Of course you have, and in so doing you have let your
 >experiential microcosm occlude your non-experiential macrocosm
 >(probably on purpose). What Mr. McCoy is telling you is that the
 >overwhelming trend is for pilots _not_ to do "dangerous things."
 >He's not saying they _never_ do, he's saying that the smart
 >money says they _seldom_ do. They don't _stay_ pilots long if
 >they do.

 >I'm a pilot with no small experience! Would you except my
 >testimony? I'd bet not! Why? Because my data does not go where
 >_you_ want to go. Did you think you were a scientist? You're
 >not. You're a dogma apologist, doing more harm than good.

 >>>or they are people [who] don't know what they are
 >>>talking about.

 >>Never claimed that, if fact I got the confirmation of what I had
 >>seen from ultralight pilots who did it.

 >This tiny bit of corroboration does not prove the rule, Mr.
 >Young. It remains that weird and unexplainable stuff flies our
 >skies with anomalous impunity. Colorado, Indiana, New Jersey...
 >You're fledgling explanations of these are dust in the wind, and
 >what's more they have a timid quality belying the courage that
 >you think you display by acting 'rational' on this List of open
 >minded individuals. Sometimes the multi-verse won't get in line
 >for you... get over it.

 >><snip>

 >>>it is, ahem, 'illegal' to fly Ultralights at night, in controlled
 >>>airspace, over populated areas. Period.

 >>Yes?

 >Such arrogance! Like you've proved _anything_! These little
 >verbal droppings (composed of moldy straw) only weaken what was
 >already a baseless two-color argument. <Bailiff!>

 >>G.T.: whether the N.J. lights were ultralights, fire balloons, a
 >>miracle (I assign a low probability to that), or whatever, may
 >>eventually be determined.

 >>You are not the first pilot who has told me that ultralight
 >>group flights in the dark have never happened, just because they
 >>aren't supposed to.

 >This does not explain the ridgidity of the formation, the
 >silence of it, nor that so many different witness were
 >astonished by it. And while it may be true that one ultralight
 >won't paint a significant return, I'd bet a flight of them
 >flying in formation, _would_.


 >>Clear skies,

 >You have a faulty definition for clarity, I'm guessing.

 >Lehmberg@snowhill.com

Gentlemen, List, Errol;

I once again feel compelled to interfere where I am not
warranted. Wanted. And the reason is simple. Since I have
rejected sanity, denied my experiences, destroyed my
philosophies on God, the Universe and Everything, and even
decided not to like Gripple, it's that bad ... I am now going to
have to do something I really hate to do....

Agree with Young Bob.

See, uh, the thing is, it's so damned weird that it's wonderful
.. the explanation, I mean. I've owned two- stroke engines and
driven them in automobiles. I've also driven wankels and driven
and raced them. I know they are reliable. I also am a ham
operator and I know that there are means of communicating which
preclude detection. All of these points deny GT's and Albert's
... uh, Alfred's ... arguments.

Furthermore, there is the issue of noise and flying in formation
at night.

Furthermore, there are the issues of noise and flying in
formation at night.

Sorry.

As for noise. A wankel can be muffled. Add the distance to the
ground, normal background noises and distractions such as
fireflies and stuff, and you have good reason for not hearing
them.

Good communications (radio) and night vision goggles now add to
a really GREAT ability to fly formation. The problem is, "Just
who are these experienced pilots, who can fly in perfect
formation without crashing into a commuter from Paducah or some
such."

The answer is so clear it is most amusing.

It's ... uh ... wait. Oh it's right on the tip of my tongue. Ok,
let's sort all this out just once more. A wankel is the noisiest
engine on the planet, unmuffled. A two stroker sounds like a
popcorn machine when idling or decelerating even a little. I
should know, I raced them all when I was a Young Jim, Young Bob.
Radios' are cheap and quiet and at low power have VERY limited
range. Night vision helps but these pilots must be very
experienced to keep that formation with all that noise that
doesn't exist. They must be real pilots. Either from the
military, maybe even special military, to try to fool the
populace and make dummies outa people like Lehmburg. And me the
way I used to be.

Or, they really UFOs. Or Black Ops gizmoids we know nothing
about. Or, real UFOs. Or, something up there we don't know
anything about. In other words, UFO's.

So I guess these are really UFO's.

Hey, Young Bob, you " ... were so much older then, you're
younger than that now." Another Bob said that.

I changed my mind. I don't wanna look and sound that stupid. I
am now converting back to a believer. For I was so much younger
then. I'm older than that now. I said that.


Old 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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 20:37:21 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:24:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hall


 >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:29:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:18:14 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:34:39 -0000


 >>>Bingo! When someone in Sheehan's mindset (thinking he is looking
 >>>at highly classified information despite all the clues to the
 >>>contrary) sees photos of a crashed saucer, he interprets it as
 >>>the real thing. Those of us who have actually plowed through the
 >>>Blue Book files know that it contains all sorts of newspaper
 >>>clippings, photo hoaxes, etc., as "background information." I
 >>>strongly suspect he has wrongly assumed things here.

 >I was able to find a Web site with a picture of a scene similar
 >to what Daniel Sheehan described seeing. It is from the 1951
 >movie 'The Thing From Another World' (see URL below). Is Richard
 >Hall suggesting that the photo Daniel saw was just Blue Book
 >"background information" such as this crashed saucer from the
 >1951 movie which he mistakened for the real thing?

I was suggesting that it is reasonable to think that it may well
have been some such background stuff in Blue Book files, and
pointing out how "confused" or "off-base" Sheehan appears to
have been about the entire Carter-CRS-UFO situation. He
apparently baldly assumed that he was looking at something
highly classified without any justification for doing so.

 >Although the
 >saucer in this movie is embedded in snow/ice and is surrounded
 >by American personnel (much like the saucer in the 'Secret KGB
 >UFO Files' TV documentary), I did not notice any inscriptions on
 >it.

 >Fortunately, Daniel still has a sketch of the inscription on the
 >crashed saucer made when he saw the photo in his files. We were
 >able to match the mystery picture of a triangular stealth
 >aircraft in Holger Isenberg's post to UFO UpDates with an artist
 >rendering of the Stealth Bomber as it appeared on the February
 >1986 cover of 'Discover' magazine. So let us now have a look at
 >Daniel's sketch of the saucer inscription and see if it matches
 >something from "background information" or something that has
 >already been reported by other UFO eyewitnesses rather than just
 >continue to speculate.

Yes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; if he ever
produces the sketch, this would be an entirely reasonable--in
fact essential - thing to do.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

              Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 16:44:07 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:27:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Balaskas


 >From: Bill Hamilton s<kywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 28 Jul 2001 10:54:59 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >I asked Daniel Sheehan if the photos he saw were a match or
 >similar to the KGB film.  He said _no_.  He has seen this film
 >and said what he saw did not even resemble what was shown.

 >Then I asked if it could be from the movie, "The Thing from
 >Another World" - NO, again, as he knows the movie.

 >Please come up with another candidate as he denies either of
 >these resembles what he saw in the photos.


Hi Bill!

On 'Strange Days... Indeed', two weeks ago, Errol asked Daniel
Sheehan if he still had the sketch of the UFO inscription and if
we would be able to see it. This time Daniel said yes!

Once Daniel's original sketch becomes public knowledge, we
should be able to determine if the picture of the crashed UFO he
saw in Washington, D.C. was from a movie set or not. As you have
already been in contact with Daniel, could you ask him when he
intends to reveal his sketch?

Are you also in contact with Henry Azadehdel? Maybe you can
ask Henry if there were any inscriptions on the crashed saucer
or on the five dead insect-like occupants that he and his German
friend photographed. Henry openly talked about this other
crashed saucer incident with a very receptive and curious Dr.
Eric Walker over a decade ago. Maybe Henry, like Daniel, has
been so busy that he never got around to sharing his incredible
discovery with others yet.

I suspect there are other people such as Henry and Daniel who
have key facts to this continuing UFO mystery which I - and I'm
sure all other UFO UpDates subscribers - would want to learn
about soon. We are not getting any younger you know.  ;o)


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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                     Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:13:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:39:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:02:09 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:27:15 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >>>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:27:31 -0700

<snip>

 >What Mr. McCoy is telling you is that the overwhelming trend
 >is for pilots _not_ to do "dangerous things." He's not saying
 >they _never_ do, he's saying that the smart money says they
 >_seldom_ do. They don't _stay_ pilots long if they do.

Al:

Hard to disagree with you about this, but what is the point? I
never said that all ultralight pilots were flying in the dark in
groups. Only that some have with the express purpose of creating
prank UFOs.

But, when you say that I have deliberately lied about seeing
such a formation and talking with a pilot who described how they
did it and confirmed that it was them, you reveal your own
ideological viewpoint, that's all.

 >I'm a pilot with no small experience! Would you except my
 >testimony? I'd bet not! Why? Because my data does not go where
 >_you_ want to go.

What "data" do you have that would relate to the incident which
I witnessed and investigated? Your own experience or opinion?
Al, it's not relevant, to that incident.

 >Did you think you were a scientist? You're not. You're a dogma
 >apologist, doing more harm than good.

Well, I've obviously joined the crowd, haven't I?

<snip>

 >This does not explain the ridgidity of the formation

What rigidity? Moving lights, dropping lights, disappearing
lights? Has anybody seen more than a very short, few
second, video clip?

 >the silence of it,

The wind was from the northwest, apparently blowing in the
direction of the lights, from the viewpoint of witnesses at
Cartelet. One was on the turnpike, with its traffic noise. How
far does an ultralight have to be to be noiseless to an upwind
witness?

 >nor that so many different witness were astonished by it.

Oh, astonishment proves something with a witness who proclaims a
miracle, or thinks they have seen a UFO? How about the witness
cited in the Newark paper who said that he saw a formation of
planes and wasn't astonished at all?

Perhaps he was deliberately lying, too? Or is it only that this
doesn't fit your belief system?

 >And while it may be true that one ultralight
 >won't paint a significant return, I'd bet a flight of them
 >flying in formation, _would_.

As a pilot with no small experience, do you have any "data" on
the percentage of ultras which carry transponders? Please be
specific, the List would love to know.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

---------

As to whether people can report what they see with a fairly good
account. There is no question about this. Otherwise, so many
UFO cases would not be solved. -- 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 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                              Loud, Long & Hard

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:47:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:53:48 -0400
Subject: Loud, Long & Hard



In the face of having my office in my home, in the face of
trying really hard to make a buck two-fifty during the UpDates
Saturday downtime, in the face of skeptics, skeptibunkers,
maligners, winers, weiners and weeners... in the face of all
them faces... I must make amends. Like Janis Joplin did in her
"Oh God, won't ya buy me, a Mercedes Benz..." type amends. My
wife just came over to me and asked me to find twenty seven
things on the Internet. I digress.

People of UpDates, I perceive that I am an experiencer. I
perceive that for many years, I've been probed, poked and forced
to do stuff I never would've done alone, let alone with some
other person or persons.

I've seen some real neat UFOs too in my time. With witnesses to
back me up. OK, OK, so among these was my mommie, daddy and
aunt. Nepotestical little snot that I am, my wonderful parents
would not under any circumcisions, lie for me. I should know, I
aksed them often. But not about alien en titties though.

Anyway, there were other witnesses. People I don't know who
verified the sighting independently. So the classic Classism of
some sort of infective mass halucination may apply. Or not.

The point. That damned pain in the neck little thingy what gotta
always pop up in all these here mails... the damned freaking
point. Well, here is one I can think of. "Something is happening
here, but you don't know what it is... do you, Mr. Jones?" You
bet your bippies.

And I will bet the farm that all of you who denegrade sightings
and sighters, abductees and abductors, all of you to a man,
woman and beast Rabban, would fall like the trees in Tunguska or
wherever the hell that thingy caused all that ruckus in Russia
(yet again, Morty exceeds Lehmburg in poetic lambastificatory
obfuscation - or is that lambasticatorialo iambic pentameter,
uh, aliteration or assinine - whatever) all of you who deny...
would fall like trees in Tuscaloosa if you yourselves were to
see a UFO. Even better, to see one up close and personal.

So, to hear your arguments about not having to experience the
experience in order to comment, study or otherwise research it,
you are quite rightly right. You don't.

But if you did... you would join the ranks of Lehmbergs, Mortys
and so many others... you would sing the praises well, too.

Loud.

Long.

Hard.

You would love us long time.


Jim Mortellaro
President, Nutcase, Inebriant, Inebrient... whatever.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                       NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs'

From: nikos <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:54:30 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 19:26:12 -0400
Subject: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs'


Hi Everyone!

Henry Cooper's 1976 book 'The Search for Life on Mars' deals
with the scientists who designed the biology experiments that
flew on the two Viking spacecraft which landed on Mars. Later
these same scientists interpreted and debated over some very
suggestive data they obtained from the surface of Mars.

Although everyone now "knows" that the Viking landers failed to
detect any life on Mars, the scientists involved then were not
so sure and at least one still believes to this day that they
did discover life on another world a quarter century ago. I
suspect that these scientists did not want to get too excited
and announce that there was life on Mars when a few years
earlier another equally excited but less cautious colleague
announced at a press conference his discovery of methane and
ammonia (two biological products) in the atmosphere of Mars from
the Mariner 6 and 7 data. We were later told this scientist
misinterpreted his data...

I wonder if Dr. Joseph Miller's new findings (see article below)
using overlooked old data from Mars will pass the close scrutiny
of his colleagues.

Nick Balaskas

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

This Excite News Article

http://news.excite.com:80/news/r/010727/19/science-space-mars-life-dc

News Article: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs,' Scientist Says
By Kevin Krolicki

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Did NASA discover evidence of life on
Mars and then misplace it for almost 25 years?

A University of Southern California scientist argues that is
just what happened and that once-lost data collected by the 1975
Viking probes suggest the existence of Martian microbes.

The significance of that finding was overlooked -- along with
the data itself -- after NASA concluded that its experiments
showed only signs of chemical activity on the surface of the
"Red Planet," said Joseph Miller, a USC neurobiologist.

But a careful reexamination of a fragment of the recovered NASA
record showed a surprising pattern: gas released by the Martian
soil and tracked by Viking followed the same kind of rhythms
followed by all Earth-bound organisms from humans to fruit flies
in a cycle akin to feeding and respiration by colonies of
microbes.

"I think, basically, that it's bugs," said Miller, a
neurobiologist and an expert in the study of the circadian
rhythms that regulate biological activity.

Two Viking spacecraft were launched by NASA in August and
September of 1975 and took almost a year to reach the Martian
atmosphere. Once there, both sent probes to the surface some
3,000 miles (4,828 km) apart to conduct a series of experiments,
several of which were designed to look for evidence of life.

In one of those tests, a robotic arm on the probes scooped up
soil samples, which were dropped into a dish along with a shot
of a radioactive carbohydrate solution.

Scientists reasoned that any organisms in the Martian soil would
consume the nutrients and release radioactive carbon as a gas,
something the probe was equipped to measure, said Miller.

Viking found clear evidence that the Martian soil generated gas
over the nine-week experiment, but scientists concluded that was
the product of reactive chemical "superperoxides" in the soil,
not evidence of life, Miller said.

NASA LOST TRACK OF RESULTS

That closed the book on the Viking experiments until Miller, who
had worked with NASA in the early 1980s studying the sleep
cycles of monkeys in space, asked the agency to go back over the
record of the experiment in 1999.

"I figured this was going to be on a Web site somewhere," Miller
said. "Well, guess again. They had lost track of it."

NASA scoured its archives and turned up the long-neglected
computer tapes, only to discover they were coded "in a format so
old that the programmers who knew it had died," Miller said.

Working from a printed record that the initial NASA team had
saved, Miller has been able to assemble and analyze about a
third of the data and plans to present his initial findings on
Sunday at a scientific conference in San Diego.

Miller found the gas emissions from the soil sample fell into a
cycle of precisely 24.66 hours -- the length of the Martian day
-- a pattern that was linked to a slight variation in the
temperature inside the mostly insulated lander.

That pattern of heightened activity in the warmer daytime and
inactivity at night is akin to the kind of temperature-driven
circadian rhythm that simple terrestrial organisms such as bread
molds exhibit, Miller said.

Even more suggestively, the amount of carbon gas released rose
over the course of the experiment, but then also dropped sharply
at one point when the soil sample was heated to 160 degrees
Celsius (320 degrees Fahrenheit).

"I think that what was happening there was that we were killing
all the bugs," said Miller, who is working to recover the full
Viking data record to see if it confirms the pattern.

Other recent studies have shown signs of climate change on Mars
dating back about 100,000 years, instead of millions or
billions, and suggest that there could be shallow ice reserves
below the planet's surface -- a key to sustaining life there.

Miller said he hopes his unexpected findings will encourage both
NASA and European researchers to revive biological experiments
in the next generation of Mars probes.

"Over the years NASA has primarily been interested in geology,"
said Miller. "But this is something out of the clear blue sky,
or I guess I should say the red sky."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                 Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@Konsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 22:09:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:28:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Kaeser


 >Date: 28 Jul 2001 11:34:14 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: Grant Cameron <SQQUISHY@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

<snip>

 >In many ways Gibbons acted as a protective service to keep the
 >issue from Clinton. That is part of the reason that Rockefeller
 >did the briefing at his former ranch in Wyoming rather than in
 >Washington. Almost none of Clinton's people were at the ranch
 >for the briefing done during Clinton's 1995 August holiday. Not
 >even the Press Secretary was there.

 >Grant

Grant-

It would be the job of the "Science Advisor" to screen all
information thrown toward the President to make a value
judgement as to what he should see, and what can be handled by
others. Clinton was a "hands on" President, and had a good grasp
of details, but information is usually pre-packaged for him and
he has trusted advisors who often filter everything he sees.
This has been true for decades and got Johnson into trouble in
the late 60's because his advisors and those in the Pentagon
began filtering out the bad news coming from Viet Nam and (IMO)
he probably based some of his decisions on the false picture he
was given.

As I read that same FOIA material I came away with the
impression that a lot of people were attempting to bend the
President's ear on this this subject, and a form of negotiation
was underway between Rockefeller's staff and Gibbons to draft a
letter regarding UFO secrecy that the President could support
and sign. I think the President was aware of these contacts, but
there is no official recognition of that fact in the FOIA
records. However, he asked one of his trusted advisors, Webster
Hubbell, to look into the UFO controversy:

http://cseti.org/position/addition/hubbell.htm

I would speculate that the President was interested in seeing
what he could find out, and determine if there was a reason to
get involved. Unfortunately, his personal needs short circuited
his Presidency and he spent much of his last term battling his
impeachment.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 23:10:57 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:30:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - Young


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights
 >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:54:59 -0700

<snip>

 >It has been put forth on this List that there is an active group
 >of fools who fly these crates at night - information yet - and I
 >ask, how is it done? No aircraft is completely silent, let alone
 >one of those little buzzy things.

Night Siege, the book about the Hudson Valley sightings
recounts mysterious v formations of lights which were buzzing.

<snip>

 >By the nature of small engines, both two and fourstroke, they
 >need to be as unrestricted as possible, i.e. little muffling.
 >Hence sound, like a chainsaw or weed-eater, in the air. There is,
 >to my knowledge, no system of muffling that is 100/50 or 40%
 >capable of muffling a small engine in those conditions.

But, at what distance? If the witnesses of the NJ lights were
upwind, this will reduce the sound which reaches them. Also,
where were the witnesses? One had pulled to the side of the NJ
Turnpike, upwind of the lights at an unkown distance.

 >Also, these small engines are notoriously unreliable - the two
 >strokes in particular, get the fuelto oil mix wrong and you
 >either seize up or foul the plug quickly. The result? An
 >unintentional landing.

I wouldn't fly in one in broad daylight, myself.

 >No electrical system with which to fire off the lights, so you'd
 >have to bring your own battery generator. (Yes there are some
 >who have electric start and a rudimentary electrical system.)

Some have battery powered lights for use at "dusk". Hand held
spots work well, took, I have been told. "If you want to see a
hovering UFO, you should have seen us flying in a circle with
our spots on", is one claim that I once heard.

 >But there is one big problem - the nature of the Operations
 >described.

 >At night, over a populated area such as the Newark airport
 >environs plus the presence of Newark itself. You don't operate
 >in that type of environment unless you are flying very low or
 >you are talking to someone. Like Newark approach for example.
 >You're an idiot to do otherwise. The Federal Aviation
 >Administration would be very interested in this sort of
 >activity. They - the Feds - know where they live, too. Is there
 >any field that would support ulitralights? How many? Is the bank
 >of batteries and lights exceeding the max weight of the
 >category?

You may be making a good case for ultralights not being involved
in this incident. Fire balloons are also a possibility. But, you
also seem to be making a good case for your being a reasonable
man who wouldn't try this stuff. Hard to disagree, I wouldn't
either.

  Now about formation flying.

<snip>

 >the key was plane to plane communication by radio. In
 >the old days, it was hand signals. Hard to do at night. If there
 >was a large formation - or even a small one - someone has to be
 >leader.

And the leader effect (called to my attention by a state
wildlife guy who pointed out that geese did it), where the
leader flies relatively straight, while the others move around
slightly, as they guide on him and each other, tipped me off to
one nighttime formation in Central Pennsylvania.

 >This gets very interesting without communication. If you
 >communicate by anything electronic, someone's listening.

Yes, this would be a risk, but then in the list of risks for
people doing this, it would seem to rank much lower down, say,
than colliding in the dark.

 >So, there you have it. My two bits on why it is highly doubtful
 >that ultralights are "Hoaxing " UFO's at night.

You may be right about the July 14 NJ sightings, GT, But, then,
you're a reasonable man.

 >P.S. Has there been spectral analysis started - that won't tell
 >the tale to some but might be interesting?

This would also be a good idea if there is another sighting, but
the second time would take some luck, and a little Edmund
artificial diffraction grating in front of a 35-mm camera lense.
One could only hope that the light is bright enough. I have
used these with street and artificial lights, but it took a
short time exposure.


Clear, uncrowded 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 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                 Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 23:50:43 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:32:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey - Young


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:54:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Orange 'Flares' Over New Jersey
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >Or, they really UFOs. Or Black Ops gizmoids we know nothing
 >about. Or, real UFOs. Or, something up there we don't know
 >anything about. In other words, UFO's.

 >So I guess these are really UFO's.

Jim:

One never knows about these things, you know.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

--------

"I find your lack of faith disturbing." - D. Vader








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 29

              Re: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 08:17:50 -0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:41:29 -0400
Subject: Re: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium - Friedman


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:17:08 EDT
 >Subject: No Roswell At MUFON 2001 Symposium
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >I attended the recent MUFON Symposium in Irvine, Calif., this
 >past weekend and found one very strange thing: There was
 >virtually nothing about Roswell at the conference, aside from
 >passing references.

 >There were almost zero Roswell books (about 5 copies of Stan
 >Friedman's UFO Crash at Corona). The largest book vendor was
 >dumbfounded when I asked where their Roswell books were. He
 >spent half an hour looking and was only able to come up with one
 >copy entitled 'Chinese Roswell'. Karl Pflock's new Roswell book
 >was nowhere to be seen.

I, too, noticed the absence of the Pflock and other Roswell
books. However, I did sell more than 20 copies each of 'Crash at
Corona' and of 'TOP SECRET/MAJIC'... I also sold a few copies of
'Recollections of Roswell', the 105 minute video with testimony
from 27 witnesses, and of 'The Final Report on Operation
Majestic 12'. Dr. Robert M. Wood's presentation was about the
Majestic 12 documents. I am still convinced that several of the
Tim Cooper documents are emulations and the rest are frauds.

Didn't somebody on this List claim that there would be a lot on
Roswell and that my paper would, of course, be about Roswell? It
was 'Flying Saucers and the Cosmic Neighborhood'.

Incidentally, though I have spoken at more MUFON Sumposia than
anyone else, I thought the speaker lineup was one of the most
impressive ever. The response of the media at the press
conference seemed to indicate this as well. Lots of PhDs, etc.

I recommend purchase of the Proceedings.

I am not saying I agreed with all the speakers. I didn't agree
with all the speakers at the American Nuclear Society meetings,
in the past, either.


Stanton T. 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 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:09:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:44:50 -0400
Subject: Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Aldrich


 >Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:54:30 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs'

 >Henry Cooper's 1976 book 'The Search for Life on Mars' deals
 >with the scientists who designed the biology experiments that
 >flew on the two Viking spacecraft which landed on Mars. Later
 >these same scientists interpreted and debated over some very
 >suggestive data they obtained from the surface of Mars.

 >Although everyone now "knows" that the Viking landers failed to
 >detect any life on Mars, the scientists involved then were not
 >so sure and at least one still believes to this day that they
 >did discover life on another world a quarter century ago. I
 >suspect that these scientists did not want to get too excited
 >and announce that there was life on Mars when a few years
 >earlier another equally excited but less cautious colleague
 >announced at a press conference his discovery of methane and
 >ammonia (two biological products) in the atmosphere of Mars from
 >the Mariner 6 and 7 data. We were later told this scientist
 >misinterpreted his data...

 >I wonder if Dr. Joseph Miller's new findings (see article below)
 >using overlooked old data from Mars will pass the close scrutiny
 >of his colleagues.

 >Nick Balaskas

 >-------------

 >This Excite News Article

 >http://news.excite.com:80/news/r/010727/19/science-space-mars-life-dc

 >News Article: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs,' Scientist Says
 >By Kevin Krolicki


Hi Nick,

I have always thought that the treatment of the results of this
experiment was a travesity of the scientific process. It appears
that the results were waved away with almost no further
examination. It seems that there may have been a snap decision
made at the time.

IMO the administrators at NASA were remiss in not insuring that
maximum scientific data were obtained from this experiment, even
if the results might have been other than the ones sought.

It seems that did not happen, but rather the data were thrown on
the scrap heap.

Exacly what are we spending all this money for in the first
place?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                 Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:34:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:50:24 -0400
Subject: Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Young


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:09:48 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:44:50 -0400
 >Subject: Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Aldrich

<snip>

 >IMO the administrators at NASA were remiss in not insuring that
 >maximum scientific data were obtained from this experiment, even
 >if the results might have been other than the ones sought.

Jan:

You believe that the life science experiments of the Viking
missions were aimed, designed or conducted toward not
discovering evidence of life?

Can you cite evidence for this? How would the large number of
scientists invoved in these experiments be controlled so as to
only find what was wished for?

Have any ideas on how such a hoax could have been carried out?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                       Nick Pope's Weird World - 07-01

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:38:56 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:58:02 -0400
Subject: Nick Pope's Weird World - 07-01


NICK POPE'S WEIRD WORLD

Welcome to the July 2001 round-up of news and views from the
world of ufology, the paranormal, strange mysteries, the weird
and the wonderful.

Why JFK Was Shot

It's being claimed that JFK was killed because he was about to
make a public announcement about Roswell and the alien presence,
against the wishes of a shadowy cabal controlling and managing
the UFO situation.

The text of this alleged speech has been circulated widely on
the Internet. This is a new take on a fairly old theory (which
has previously linked the death of Marilyn Monroe with the whole
business).

JFK researcher Professor Lawrence Merrick will be expanding on
this claim in a new book Killing The Messenger, The Death of
JFK. I'm no expert on this subject, but here's my small
contribution: the speech ends with the phrase "I ask you to look
to the future not with timidity but with courage. Because we can
achieve in our time the ancient vision of peace on Earth and
prosperity for all humankind".

I wonder whether, in 1963, the word "humankind" was in usage?
The word 'mankind' appears earlier in the speech (I've drafted
speeches for politicians, and it's unusual to switch between
these sorts of words in a carefully scripted announcement) and
was used in 1969 when Neil Armstrong first stepped on the moon.
So can anyone find a US government document or the transcript of
a political speech, from 1963 or earlier, using the word
"humankind"? If not, I'd suggest the speech has to be a modern
hoax.


Eye Spy

The second edition of Eye Spy! magazine is available from 5
July, and will feature more revelations and in-depth analyses on
various topics connected with intelligence, espionage,
terrorism, military matters and conspiracies. There's never been
a magazine quite like it, and many of the feature writers are
people with backgrounds in or contacts with the military,
government or the intelligence agencies. The magazine is getting
a lot of media attention, and their website is expanding rapidly
too, so check out www.eyespymag.com for further details and
subscription information.


David Jacobs Visits UK

David Jacobs flew over to the UK for a short vacation last
month, and together with Timothy Good, myself and a few others
had a very pleasant evening at Georgina Bruni's flat, where we
talked about ufology and abduction research, comparing the
situation in the UK and the US.

David gave us copies of 'UFOs & Abductions', which he edited. This
book contains essays by himself, Stuart Appelle, Thomas Bullard,
Jerome Clark, Don Donderi, Budd Hopkins, John Mack, Michael
Persinger, Michael Swords and Ron Westrum. The book aims to
examine ufology (and particularly the abduction phenomenon) in a
way that will encourage academic and scientific study. The
authors have differing areas of expertise and differing
perspectives, but this is one of its strengths. This
thought-provoking book is highly recommended. It's published by
the University Press of Kansas (which should tell you that the
book passed muster in terms of data evaluation and methodology)
whose website is www.kansaspress.ku.edu.


UFO Controversy on TV

The following is a transcript of part of an episode of Frasier,
the popular US comedy series. The episode was entitled 'Docu
Drama', and was screened on Channel 4 in United Kingdom on
Friday 20th April 2001.

Former astronaut Senator John Glenn has been hired to narrate
Roz's space documentary, and makes the following comments while
Frasier and Roz are arguing in the adjacent room. We only hear
part of Senator Glenn's comments, as the action moves between
the two different locations:


Well I'm the one that's sorry; it's my nature to be honest and,
back in those glory days I was very uncomfortable when they
asked us to say things that I didn't want to say, and deny other
things.

Some people ask, you know, "were you alone out there?". We never
gave the real answer, and yet we've seen things out there;
strange things.

But we knew what we saw out there and we couldn't, we couldn't
really say anything and - and the bosses were scared of this,
they were afraid of War of the Worlds type stuff and, and about
panic in the streets, and so we had to keep quiet and now we
only see these things in our - well, in our nightmares or, or
maybe in the - in the movies, er, and some of them are pretty
close to being the truth.

Whoosh, whoosh, whoosh (Glenn moves his hand in an animated
fashion, as if tracing the motion of a rapidly moving object)

Glenn enters the adjacent room where Frasier and Roz have been
arguing, assuming that they have heard his comments, when in
fact they haven't.

Glenn: Er, look, er, about what I just said out there. Can we
        just keep that between us?

Roz:   Oh, of course Senator.

Glenn: Good well - oh wait, you were recording all that?

Roz:   Yeah but that's OK, we've got plenty of tape.

Glenn: I'm gonna need that tape.


There has been much debate about this, and some ufologists have
read a lot into this, believing it to have been just another way
of acclimatising the public to an extraterrestrial reality,
prior to some sort of official announcement. I'm afraid I think
this is nonsense, and that the whole thing was just par for the
course for a witty and sophisticated show like Frasier. But I've
seen innacurate versions of the transcript put out in various
magazines and websites, and wanted to put out the correct
version.


'Disclosure'

I've just received an advance copy of Steven Greer's new book,
'Disclosure', which comprises edited testimony from 68 of the
people (mainly ex-government or military) whose interviews were
used in his Disclosure Project. More about this next month, when
I've had a chance to read it.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                       Nick Pope's Weird World - 08-01

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:39:01 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:06:15 -0400
Subject: Nick Pope's Weird World - 08-01


NICK POPE'S WEIRD WORLD

Welcome to the August 2001 round-up of news, views and gossip
from the world of ufology, the paranormal, the weird and the
wonderful.

'Disclosure' - New Book By Steven Greer

In last month's column I stated that I'd received an advance
copy of Steven Greer's new book, 'Disclosure', which
comprises edited testimony from 68 of the witnesses
(mainly ex government, military, scientific or police personnel)
whose interviews were used in his Disclosure Project.

I've now had a chance to go through some of this material, and
have to say that it's very interesting.

The people concerned have in some cases witnessed UFOs
personally, while others have been involved in an official UFO
research programme of some sort.

The book runs to nearly 600 pages and Greer keeps himself in the
background, making some introductory and concluding remarks, and
appearing in the course of the interviews themselves, asking
brief questions.

But for the most part, the book comprises the testimony of the
witnesses themselves, and this means that this is a real
researcher's book, rich in direct quotes from people such as
Monsignor Corrado Balducci, Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper, Lord
Hill-Norton, Hal Puthoff, Alan Godfrey and Walter Haut.

I should declare an interest, in that I'm one of the people
interviewed.

Ufologists do not generally feature in the book as witnesses,
unless they have an official background themselves (like George
Filer III and Richard Haines).

There are a few criticisms:

First, a few anonymous witnesses appear, which makes the
testimony difficult if not impossible to evaluate.

Second, a few of the witnesses are regarded as fantasists or
hoaxers by many serious researchers.

Finally, some of the material comes not from interviews with
Greer but from interviews acquired from UFO documentary producer
James Fox.

I know that at least one witnesses is not pleased at being
associated with Greer and suspect that a few others will express
similar reservations. That said, I should stress that neither
Greer nor Fox has done anything wrong, because the release forms
that interviewees sign when taking part in TV programmes
invariably give the production company the right to pass the
interview to third parties.

Greer is a controversial figure in ufology, but there's no doubt
that he's put together what is an extremely important book. It
will be available from Crossing Point Publications later this
year, and will doubtless be extensively promoted on the
Internet.


My Ten Years In Ufology

I nearly didn't notice, but I've just passed the tenth anniversary
of my involvement with ufology. It was on 29 July 1991 that I
took up my post in Secretariat(Air Staff)2a at the Ministry of
Defence.

For the next three years I researched and investigated the UFO
phenomenon, looking into the old government files and
investigating new cases (around 200-300 a year) as they came in.
Through this, I got drawn into related mysteries such as alien
abductions, crop circles and cattle mutilation.

My last day in this job was almost exactly three years later, on
26 July 1994.

Ever since then I've continued my research and investigations in
a private capacity. I can't overstate how my involvement with
this subject has changed my life. I've had my eyes and my mind
opened to a whole new world. I've seen things that many people
wouldn't believe, and I've met the most amazing people. There's
been a dark side too, but on balance I'm glad my life took the
direction it did. It's been one hell of a ride!


David Shayler Speaks Out

Renegade MI5 officer David Shayler has given a wide-ranging and
controversial interview to Eye Spy!, the new magazine focusing
on intelligence, terrorism and military affairs. The interview
is in the third edition of the controversial new magazine, which
is available in the shops from 16 August. Check out
www.eyespymag.com for further information, including details of
how to subscribe.


Hypnosis - The Debate Continues

The July 2001 issue of Scientific American (www.sciam.com)
carried an interesting article about hypnosis, that should be
read by all those with an interest or involvement in alien
abduction research.

I suspect that it's one of those articles from which people will
quote selectively, to reinforce their existing beliefs (one of
my pet hates), so in the interests of balance I'll say that the
article offers something for believers and sceptics alike.

On the one hand, the article does confirm that far from being a
combination of fakery or wishful thinking, hypnosis is a real
phenomenon with several genuine therapeutic uses, e.g. pain
control.

But the article also casts doubt on whether hypnosis can enable
people to relive the past, pointing out that age-regressed
adults behave like adults playacting as children.

It also says that far from enhancing memory, hypnosis can
actually blur the distinction between fantasy and reality. Of
course, the article (by Michael Nash, associate professor of
psychology at the University of Tennessee) is only one experts
view, and other psychologists and psychiatrists will doubtless
disagree, as will numerous therapists, abduction researchers and
abductees.

The article may well generate quite a postbag, and I'll come
back to this story next month, if it does. Ironically, the same
edition ran a tongue-in-cheek piece about ufology.


Sensational New UFO Photographs

On 4 June the Daily Record newspaper broke the story of how one
of their own award-winning photographers, Mark Runnacles, took
several shots showing a UFO.

He was taking some photographs of a sunrise over Glasgow, but
didn't notice anything unusual at the time.

Two photographs show a green glow, while one does seem to show a
solid, disc-shaped object.

The shots are some of the most interesting I've seen for a
while, and are featured in the August 2001 edition of UFO
Magazine www.ufomag.co.uk which is out now.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 30

               Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:34:42 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:15:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Goldstein


 >Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:01:22 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

 >>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 03:50:58 +0200
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

 >>>Date: 27 Jul 2001 03:59:12 -0700
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: Grant Cameron <SQQUISHY@altavista.com>
 >>>Subject: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

 >>>Records of the Clinton Administration Related to UFOs and
 >>>Extraterrestrial Intelligence Part 3
 >
 >>>"What is truth?"
 >>>    -- Pontius Pilot addressing Jesus of Nazareth

 >>>The OSTP files showed that 1995 brought with it some new ideas
 >>>to advance the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The Human Potential
 >>>Foundation, for example, hosted an international conference:

 >>>When Cosmic Cultures Meet in late May.

 ><snip>

 >>>"There are two areas of sadness on this subject, continued
 >>>Gibbons. "The first is the government's bodyguard of lies around
 >>>it, and the second is the attempt by some (perhaps even some
 >>>parts of the government) to cloak it in evil. Nature is not
 >>>evil."

 >><snip>

 >>In the last paragraph I quoted above from your fascinating
 >>account did Gibbons or Jones make that statement?

 >Hello Josh: (good to hear from you.)

 >Can you, or anyone else, tell me and others in 50 words or less
 >what the Clinton, OSTP, Sheehan etc., etc., is all about; and
 >whether its worth reading 1.0% of the reams sent about it?

 >As soon as an email gets over 2KB I have a tendency to filter it
 >out as a rant.

 >Any short, sharp help appreciated



Hi Larry,

I hope you and all fellow Listerions are well. Thanks for
welcoming me back aboard. In case you are not the only one who
missed me I am responding on the list... I disappeared for two
months because at the end of May I received a 5am phone call
that my mother just had a massive heart attack. I caught the
next flight from Berlin to Washington, D.C. She had to get a
multiple bypass surgery, had two strokes, and is partially
recovering in a rehab ward. I really feel for John Velez.

I also had time there to have secret cabals with a few prominent
fellow members of the 'UFO Elite'. Remember, I was one of the
List member Listerions implicated as a member of a secret league
by someone who found out he was not welcome on UpDates.

I just got back, rested, and caught up on a massive amount of
accumulated posts. I had periodically been able to keep track of
the themes on this List on Dick Hall's computer, as he was
gracious enough to offer good cheer and time for me to research
in the uncensored Blue Book files. They are located underground
his house, in one of the command bunkers of the 'UFO Elite'.

There are also other members who have facilities and are trying
to keep the roaring train of Ufology heading on the right
tracks, to head somewhere and not keep running around in circles
like headless chickens. Remember:

"There are no headless rubber chickens in the Universe".

[As told to me by Col. 'Gizzard' Sanders on the battlefield of
the chicken livers. He also told me that the Greys are running a
psychic Jihad. Could that be true?]

I am still very jetlagged. But in my post above I was asking
Grant Cameron who made that statement because he had just been
quoting from Scott Jones. That is a rather surprising statement
if it indeed came from Gibbons. It is contrary to his position
regarding UFOs.

If no one has answered your question yet, I would have to rest,
read the post again, and then gather my thoughts, if I can find
my dustbunny. Perhaps Grant can explain it to both of us?

Larry, in late September or so (as my music schedule will allow)
I hope to get back out for a visit to my old turf in California.
We can get together and slurp some of Emma's artichoke soup,
with UFOs for crackers to sop up stories with. Another meeting
of the cabal, a Redwood ritual.

Now that Robert Hanson sold the Russians all of the United
States Continuity of Government secret underground locations
(the jewel in the crown), I must get started on my underground
elite command center for European UFOmania refugees.


Stay tuned,

Josh Goldstein












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                Chile: Carabineros Closed 'Chupacabras' Case

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:48:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:19:46 -0400
Subject: Chile: Carabineros Closed 'Chupacabras' Case


"Trust, but Verify."
---Mikhail Gorbachev, regarding START arms treaty, 1987.


SOURCE: La Estrella del Loa,
DATE: Saturday, July 28, 2001

CARABINEROS CLOSED "CHUPACABRAS" CASE

In spite of senator Carlos Cantero's distaste for the fact that
the Investigative Police has still not prepared a report on the
massive and controversial animal deaths which took place last
year in Calama, he is very satisfied by the details provided by
Carabineros in regard to the case.

Since he began to inquire about these particulars, the
parlamentarian states that he has been the target of scorn for
some people, and that one of his greatest concerns is that the
subject receive a proper treatment in the media, particularly,
he believes, "because not everyone has the guts to risk being
trampled underfoot when requesting official agencies hand over
what they know about such a complex situation."

Together with the detailed report from Carabineros, Fransico
Segovia, governor of El Loa province, made a document with the
conclusions reached by the Health Services available to the
senator. And although both official documents--to the
disappointment of  UFO researchers--agree on ascribing the
animal deaths to wild dogs and not to the Chupacabras, neither
of the two agencies supplies information that was not made
available by the press, nor do they furnish the result of the
investgative work conducted, except for the autopsy reports on
three pigs slain by a puncturing object..

Are you aware, Senator, that the vaunted theory involving dogs
did not satisfy a considerable sector of the El Loa community,
and that it probably won't now, either?

-I'm aware that  due to its spectacular nature and mystery, this
case has given rise to much controversy, doubt and debate, but I
must abide by the reports I requested, which conclude that
animals [were responsible], in this case, feral dogs from the
garbage dump.

I'm assuming that these reports were drafted by highly qualified
individuals--experts who engaged in a serious and responsible
taks. As a consequence of that, I must be a party to this, and
consider myself fully satisfied by the explanation provided.

Does the fact that official institutions have provided an
explanation mean that said explanation is the truth?

-It's the agency's truth and the conclusion of its experts. Thre
may be other interpretations, and I respect any other
interpretations, but I'm interested in learning about the expert
reports, which were delivered to me..

Carabineros [Chilean state police] is an agency which
specializes in the prevention and timely detection of crime, as
opposed to Investigations, which is an agency responsible for
going beyond what is both evident and immediate in order to
secure solid proof on a given situation. What are you hoping [to
learn] from the civillian police's report? A repetition of known
facts, such as the ones hitherto made known to the public, or
the results and conclusions of scientific tests applied by the
Crime Lab to the evidence forwarded from Santiago, such as hair
samples, prints, and claw marks on victims?

- As a matter of fact, the report of the Investigations Police
is missing here, because the one that I received cannont be
considered as acceptable. I think that the police has an
outstanding duty to take care of. The agency says "no new claims
have been presented" and this does not answer my question, which
was: "give me a report on your research related to animal
deaths." realidad

There is a large number of situations, and as has been
explained, in many of these cases there was simply no blood
[found on the animals]. If the dogs to which they are referring
ate the blood, I can't say...

I hope that detectives will report the cases, the type of
investigation conducted and their conclusions. I have no
preconceived notions nor am I open or closed to hypotheses. What
I'm interested in finding out is that if scientists on the State
payroll came to perform a study, that report should be produced,
delivered to the pertinent parties and hopefully made known to
the public to avoid sensationalistic claims, public spectacle
and this senseless mystery. In the measure that information is
circulated, the public will be able to reach its own
conclusions. Let's not be afraid of ridicule.

Could the phenomenon have cause some sort of collective
psychosis or similar?

-It could have multiple explanations: it could be a collective
psychosis, or perhaps abnormal things could in fact exist. There
could be many things [at play], but I have no proof of this.

Is it probable that official agencies might conceal information
under certain circumstances?

- It is perfectly possible. I have no reason for saying that
information's been concealed from me, but it's possible. It
hasn't occured just once, but many times, all over the world.

People feel a bit afraid of ridicule regarding this subject.
I've realized that some people take it extremely seriously,
seeing no less than the presence of extraterrestrials in all of
this, while others consider it supreme tomfoolery.

I'm motivated by two things: I want to read responsible expert
reports that are both serious and scientific-minded, and the
scope of the problem and its victims, because there were people
who lost a great deal of the capital on which they live for an
entire year. We shall see if it is possible to remedy the losses
suffered by these people, in part...


############################################

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 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                 [inexplicata] Nicaragua: UFO Over Granada?

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:47:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:22:56 -0400
Subject: [inexplicata] Nicaragua: UFO Over Granada?


SOURCE: "El Nuevo Diario" (Nicaragua)
DATE: July 29, 2001:


Citizens Claim Having Seen Saucers

A UFO in Granada?

* Description given: a strange ship <<having a circular,
   saucer-type shape, which crossed the skies leaving two fiery
   tails in its wake�

* Granadian youths saw it fly south toward the El Domingazo
   neighborhood, from which the Mombacho Volcano can be seen.

* The 4th Army Command reports nothing relevant, but we shall
   investigate.

BY AUGUSTO CERMEO
GRANADA.-

UFOs in Granada? It's possible. It would seem that Unidentified
Flying Objects are flying almost nightly over the El Domingazo
neighborhood, according to the accounts provided by at least a
dozen local residents interviewed by EL NUEVO DIARIO.

One day we were approached by our friend  Sebastin Arista
Guadamuz,  38, a resident of the aforementioned neighborhood,
which is located in this city's northern end. Arista told us he,
his wife and many other locals have seen flying saucers around 7
p.m. almost every night over what used to be a distillery some
three blocks to the north.esidente en el mencionado barrio,
localizado en el extremo norte de esta ciudad.

Sebastin and his wife, Teodora Ruiz Espinoza, claim that their
hair stood on end when they saw a shiny round object flying over
the neighborhood and head off toward the east. The Aristas even
say that their daughter saw the strange, saucer-shaped craft
which crossed the sky, leaving two fiery tails in its wake. "The
child was frightened by what her eyes was seeing, " said Mr.
Arista.

On our own part, we toured the area on Thursday afternoon,
corroborating the story provided by Arista with several
neighbors. Among other persons, we spoke with Rosa Isabel Trejos
Nuez, 28, who claimed having seen, in the company of two other
people,  "something like a fireball with a fiery tail" on
Wednesday night.


EVER SINCE DECEMBER

Aside from the sightings this month, Rosa Isabel told us: "We
saw it pass in early December". She was calm and relaxed,
stating that there is no fear whatsoever as a result of this
nocturnal vision, and that they do not believe that Martians are
visiting Earth, because "we think [such things] are normal."

Alvaro Antonio Iglesias Lacayo, 16 , claims having seen the same
phenomenon, which frightened both him and his sister Maria
Luisa, 24.  Alvaro says that he and his sister saw "how
something round broke off from the object and dropped downward
on Wednesday night, on the south side. It flew downward as
though about to land. As it went down, the light became
brighter, as thought it was looking for a runway."

The young Granadian saw the object in his sister's company from
an area to the south of the El Domingazo neighborhood, from
where the Mombacho Volcano can be seen. The saucer, according to
Alvaro, "was green in color, but as it went downward, an immense
yellow light turned on."

Jess Pacheco Cortez,18,  also saw the strange object on Tuesday
night. "We saw a flash, like that, leaving a light behind which
suddenly turned off before reaching Managua. It was about nine
o'clock at night," reported Pacheco.

Efraim Ruiz saw the same thing: �A fireball. I was with them. We
saw a fireball leaving a trail of yellow light. It left it over
a long distance before turning itself off, very slowly. It flew
high, at the height of an airplane, but at high speed. Some of
our friends were saying, hey, there goes an airplane, but no,
that thing was like a meteorite. It was fast. It suddenly
disappeared.�

We contacted Captain Andrs Calero, a senior officer with the
4th Army Command and consulted this matter with him. The
Nicaraguan Army officer said that he had no information
regarding the strange phenomenon, but assured us that he would
contact Captain Belanguer of the Civil Defense and ask him to
look into the matter. en el Cuarto Comando Militar, ayer
(viernes) y le consultamos sobre el asunto.


ALSO IN JINOTEPE

Residents of Jinotepe have also gotten used to seeing the
passage of vehicles that aren't at all strange, since they are
aircraft plowing the Nicarguan route, probably headed for Panama
or Venezuela..

These aircraft fly with intermittent lights, as though coming
from Managua toward the Great Lake of Nicaragua, but at very
high altitude. There are other nights on which what used to be
identified as shooting stars could bee seen, but given the fact
that they pass at regular times, could possibly be satellites
reflecting the sun's light



####################################

Translation (C) 2001. Institute of Hispanic Ufology.

Special Thanks to Gloria Coluchi.



"Trust, but Verify."
---Mikhail Gorbachev, regarding START arms treaty, 1987.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                 Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:41:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:58:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Young


 >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:34:42 +0200
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

<snip>

 >Now that Robert Hanson sold the Russians all of the United
 >States Continuity of Government secret underground locations
 >(the jewel in the crown), I must get started on my underground
 >elite command center for European UFOmania refugees.

Josh:

Sorry to hear about your mother, hope she's doing better, now.

Hope you'll keep a corner in the undergound doghouse-bunker
for a skeptic or two (three might be too many).


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 >
   Jul > Jul 30

              Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 30 Jul 2001 08:00:15 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:01:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology - Hamilton


 >Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 16:44:07 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology

 >>From: Bill Hamilton s<kywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Date: 28 Jul 2001 10:54:59 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Sheehan, Greer & Corporate Ufology
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >>I asked Daniel Sheehan if the photos he saw were a match or
 >>similar to the KGB film. He said _no_. He has seen this film
 >>and said what he saw did not even resemble what was shown.

 >>Then I asked if it could be from the movie, "The Thing from
 >>Another World" - NO, again, as he knows the movie.

 >>Please come up with another candidate as he denies either of
 >>these resembles what he saw in the photos.

 >Hi Bill!

 >On 'Strange Days... Indeed', two weeks ago, Errol asked Daniel
 >Sheehan if he still had the sketch of the UFO inscription and if
 >we would be able to see it. This time Daniel said yes!

 >Once Daniel's original sketch becomes public knowledge, we
 >should be able to determine if the picture of the crashed UFO he
 >saw in Washington, D.C. was from a movie set or not. As you have
 >already been in contact with Daniel, could you ask him when he
 >intends to reveal his sketch?

I will ask him when I see him next, hopefully sometime next
month.

 >Are you also in contact with Henry Azadehdel? Maybe you can
 >ask Henry if there were any inscriptions on the crashed saucer
 >or on the five dead insect-like occupants that he and his German
 >friend photographed. Henry openly talked about this other
 >crashed saucer incident with a very receptive and curious Dr.
 >Eric Walker over a decade ago. Maybe Henry, like Daniel, has
 >been so busy that he never got around to sharing his incredible
 >discovery with others yet.

I have not talked to Henry in years. I would very much like to
re-establish contact with him. I think Graham Birsell of UK UFO
magazine would know how to reach him.

 >I suspect there are other people such as Henry and Daniel who
 >have key facts to this continuing UFO mystery which I - and I'm
 >sure all other UFO UpDates subscribers - would want to learn
 >about soon. We are not getting any younger you know. ;o)

Younger? I have been at this, off and more on, for 48 years now
and feel younger everyday. Must be from a rejuvination ray used
by the aliens! :) Seriously, it would be nice to have some closure
on this subject before I pass into the Great Beyond.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 30

              Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:10:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:19:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 23:10:57 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


McCoy wrote:

 >>P.S. Has there been spectral analysis started - that won't tell
 >>the tale to some but might be interesting?

Bob responded

 >This would also be a good idea if there is another sighting, but
 >the second time would take some luck, and a little Edmund
 >artificial diffraction grating in front of a 35-mm camera lense.
 >One could only hope that the light is bright enough. I have
 >used these with street and artificial lights, but it took a
 >short time exposure.

As a matter of interest, an Edmund diffraction grating was used
during a "Bubba" sighting in Gulf Breeze ver nine year ago (Feb,
1992).  The spectrum obtained from "Bubba" was compared with
another spectrum, that of a red road flare, obtained right after
the Bubba sighting, using the same camera, same film, same
diffraction grating.

The two spectra were different.

Hence the red Bubba light was not from a road flare.
(Speculation had included road flares hanging from balloons... a
very dangerous thing to do over a populated area!)


Gulf Breeze "Bubba" has never been 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 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:20:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:21:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Lehmberg


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:41:10 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:34:42 +0200
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3

 ><snip>

 >>Now that Robert Hanson sold the Russians all of the United
 >>States Continuity of Government secret underground locations
 >>(the jewel in the crown), I must get started on my underground
 >>elite command center for European UFOmania refugees.

 >Josh:

 >Sorry to hear about your mother, hope she's doing better, now.

 >Hope you'll keep a corner in the undergound doghouse-bunker
 >for a skeptic or two (three might be too many).


...Always room for real skeptics, Bobbo! I'm sure Mr. Goldstein
would have their respected corner well appointed! It's the
skepti-_bunkies_ that don't deserve a billet, even in a dog's
house.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                 Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:00:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:14:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Young


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:20:37 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:41:10 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Hope you'll keep a corner in the undergound doghouse-bunker
 >>for a skeptic or two (three might be too many).

 >...Always room for real skeptics, Bobbo! I'm sure Mr. Goldstein
 >would have their respected corner well appointed! It's the
 >skepti-_bunkies_ that don't deserve a billet, even in a dog's
 >house.

Ah, yes. Only self-proclaimed skeptics who are really deep
down believers are allowed.

[Barf-Barf, whine-whine.]

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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                    CCCRN News: Fields of Dreams Webcast

From: Paul Anderson <psa@look.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:17:36 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:16:31 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: Fields of Dreams Webcast



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

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

July 30, 2001

_____________________________



FIELDS OF DREAMS WEBCAST RADIO SHOW - AUGUST 1, 2001


Wednesday, August 1, 2001
Live, 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm PT / 9:00 pm to 10:00 pm ET

Guest: Beata Van Berkom, CCCRN Saskatchewan; discussion of the
Canadian crop circles in 2000 and upcoming field studies for
Crop Watch 2001 later this summer; some great perspectives on
the Canadian phenomenon for the very first Fields of Dreams
show!

Next Month: Nancy Talbott of the BLT Research Team, with
exclusive new information on lab testing results (from other
independent labs) of soil samples from the Edmonton, Alberta #2
1999 pictogram formation which have provided what may be some of
the strongest evidence yet for a real phenomenon, relating to
heat effects of plants and soil inside formations.


Fields of Dreams is the monthly webcast radio show of CCCRN
(starting August 1, 2001), part of  the Night Search Paranormal
Network (NSPN). The program, hosted by CCCRN founder and
director Paul Anderson, is broadcast live the first Wednesday of
each month, from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm PT / 9:00 pm to 10:00 pm ET,
covering the crop circle phenomenon in Canada and abroad with
the latest updates, guest researchers and listener call-ins.
Listenership is by subscription at low, affordable rates. The
advantage of this is that all programs on NSPN feature NO
COMMERCIALS unlike other broadcasts. A single subscription
provides listening access to all programs on NSPN, both live and
archived (all shows are archived for future listening at the
subscriber's leisure) for the duration of the subscription,
featuring researchers from around the world hosting their own
programs on a wide range of topics in a unique webcasting
format. Also listen for other periodic and breaking updates from
CCCRN, including live reports 'from the field' during the summer
and fall for the NSPN Worldwide Paranormal Report (also included
with subscription).

To subscribe or listen to the live broadcast:

http://nightsearchregistration.net

**Please reference this show when you subscribe, thank you! Your
subscription helps support CCCRN and continued research.

Subscription Rates: One month $7.50, three months $21.00, six
months $35.00 or yearly $77.00 (all prices US $).

Real Player or Windows Media Player are required to listen to
the broadcasts.

SPECIAL PROMOTION! People who subscribe during August will get
the month of September for free. It doesn't matter if your
subscription is for one month or up to a whole year, you will
have an extra bonus month added.

PLEASE NOTE: The start date of broadcasting for the newly
formatted NSPN as a whole is Wednesday, August 1, including
Fields of Dreams that evening. All subscriptions paid for before
August 1 begin on that date; new subscribers choose a password
to use to log in to listen through the registration page on the
NSPN web site (above link); the password entry page will be on
the registration page as of August 1. The listener call-in
number will also be posted on the web site on that date (this
will be a 1- 800 toll-free number within the next few weeks).

For more information:

http://www.nightsearch.net

The NSPN web site has been receiving over 300,000 hits per month
during the last few months of promotion; an announcement of the
network will also be made to major news media groups in
September. CCCRN is pleased to be part of this new format of
commercial-free internet radio broadcasting!


____________________________


CCCRN News is the e-news service of the Canadian Crop Circle
Research Network, providing e-mail updates with the latest news
and reports on the crop circle phenomenon in Canada, as well as
information on other CCCRN-related projects and events.

CCCRN News is available free by subscription:

To subscribe to CCCRN News, send a blank e-mail to:
cccrnnews-subscribe@topica.com

To unsubscribe from CCCRN News, send a blank e-mail to:
cccrnnews-unsubscribe@topica.com

CCCRN News Archive:
http://www.topica.com/lists/cccrnnews/read


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

Main Office:
202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5T 2M9 Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@look.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

Fields of Dreams Webcast Radio Show:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/fieldsofdreams.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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                          Secrecy News -- 07/30/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:56:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:28:46 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 07/30/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
July 30, 2001

**SUPPRESSED INDONESIA HISTORY PUBLISHED
**SENATOR PUSHES SECURITY LOCK UPGRADE
**NRO BUDGET DETAILS DISCLOSED


SUPPRESSED INDONESIA HISTORY PUBLISHED

An attempt by CIA and State Department officials to block the
disclosure of historical records concerning U.S. policy towards
Indonesia in the 1960s was frustrated Friday when the
non-governmental National Security Archive published them on its
web site.

The records, contained in a new volume of the official Foreign
Relations of the United States series, recall the bloody
Indonesian army campaign of 1965-1966 against the Indonesia
Communist Party and suggest that the U.S. government was, at a
minimum, complicit in the purge in which at least 100,000 people
were killed.

Aside from the historical interest of the documents themselves,
the new disclosure is a remarkable illustration of the power of
the world wide web, which makes this officially suppressed
history universally available in a way that it would not have
been in the past.

See the National Security Archive release here:

http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB52/

Though all of the newly-disclosed Indonesia records had been
declassified, CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield told the New York
Times that the government wanted to delay publication "to avoid
roiling relations at a time of political turmoil in Indonesia."

But Hassan Wirayuda of the Indonesia Ministry of Foreign Affairs
said this history has no bearing on current political issues in
his country.

"It is the U.S. government who considers the issue sensitive and
not us," he told the Jakarta Post today.

"The role of U.S. intelligence in the anticommunist movement was
widely known," said Anhar Gonggong of the University of
Indonesia.

The fact that U.S. officials supplied the names of Communist
party members to the Indonesian army who then executed them was
reported by journalist Kathy Kadane in 1990. See:

http://www.pir.org/kadane.html

A 1985 study on "The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno,
1965-1967" by Berkeley professor Peter Dale Scott may be found
here:

http://www.pir.org/scott.html


SENATOR PUSHES SECURITY LOCK UPGRADE

Pentagon officials noted with concern last week that Senator Jim
Bunning (R-KY) is renewing his efforts to force the Defense
Department and each of its contractors to upgrade the locks on
safes and vaults containing classified information, using a
high-tech lock manufactured by the Mas-Hamilton Group, Inc., a
company that is based in the Senator's home state of Kentucky.

The word from Capitol Hill was that Senator Bunning was
proposing language in the FY 2002 Defense Authorization Act that
would require all classified information storage containers
maintained by the Defense Department and its contractors to have
the Mas-Hamilton electronic lock installed by December 31, 2004.

"Such a requirement will expedite the current timetable
implemented by the former administration," according to Sen.
Bunning's proposed report language obtained by Secrecy News,
"and will increase the security of classified documents spread
throughout the DoD and industry."

For years, Sen. Bunning and others have been adding unrequested
money to the defense budget earmarked for new locks, much to the
disgust of many security professionals.

Critics point out that there is no documented case in which
classified information has been compromised due to use of a
conventional mechanical lock. And, they insist, there are
several higher priorities for expending the limited funds
available for security, such as reducing the huge backlog of
cleared personnel awaiting background reinvestigations,
improving cyber-security, and so forth.

Many officials are also rankled by the Senator's habit of
invoking "national security" to advance his constituents'
commercial interests.

"Of course [Sen. Bunning] has his own agenda that is hardly
objective," complained one Pentagon official last week, "but we
can't go back and say that."

The official also noted pointedly that Douglas Feith, the new
Bush Administration Undersecretary of Defense for Policy,
formerly served as a lobbyist for Mas-Hamilton and its locks.

But another security expert defended the need for the new locks.
"Mas-Hamilton does have a financial stake in the outcome of the
debate, but that should not cloud the arguments that favor lock
retrofit and container replacement."

"The truth is that the security equipment in use today,
particularly within the defense contractor establishment, is
woefully inadequate for the protection of the nation's secrets,"
the private security expert said. "Non FF-L-2740 locks [i.e.
mechanical locks, unlike those produced by Mas-Hamilton] can be
penetrated surreptitiously within 20 minutes and barlock
containers can be penetrated surreptitiously within seconds."


NRO BUDGET DETAILS DISCLOSED

Fine-grain details of the classified budget for the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which runs the nation's spy
satellites, were disclosed last week by Col. Donald Langridge,
chief of the Army element at NRO.

The annual budget for the NRO has been around $6 billion in
recent years. While the exact amount remains classified, Colonel
Langridge told Defense Daily (July 23, 2001) that "the breakdown
of the FY '02 NRO budget ... is 57.7 percent for acquisition
activities, 8 percent for launch, 9 percent for research and
development, 18.1 percent for operations and 7.2 percent for
infrastructure."

Official disclosure of this level of intelligence budget detail
is unusual. Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet has
sworn under oath that disclosure of the total intelligence
budget figure could threaten national security and compromise
intelligence sources and methods. In the absence of effective
oversight from Congress, wayward CIA officials even claim that
disclosure of fifty year old intelligence budget data could
cause damage to national security.

This year's intelligence budget authorization process is way
behind schedule. The Congressional Budget Justification Books
for intelligence spending in FY 2002 have still not been
delivered to the congressional intelligence committees, a
staffer said last week. The unusual delay is apparently due to
the Pentagon's ongoing defense review, which encompasses
intelligence programs.

Meanwhile, "The National Reconnaissance Office lost contact with
a U.S. spy satellite last week, causing a major gap in
intelligence monitoring of world hot spots," according to a July
26 report by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times. See:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010726-76644483.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
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:  www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:55:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:34:11 -0400
Subject: Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Aldrich


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:34:54 EDT
 >Subject: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs'
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:09:48 -0400
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Data Point to Mars 'Bugs' - Aldrich

 ><snip>

 >>IMO the administrators at NASA were remiss in not insuring that
 >>maximum scientific data were obtained from this experiment, even
 >>if the results might have been other than the ones sought.


Damn, Bob!

Do you have difficulty reading!?

I will thank you not to put words in my mouth. I resent your
post!

 >Jan:

 >You believe that the life science experiments of the Viking
 >missions were aimed, designed or conducted toward not
 >discovering evidence of life?

No, I never said this! What the hell is wrong with you? How by
the wildest stretch of the imagination did you get this out of
my post?

Read the news story cited in the original post on this subject.
It says that the some scientists felt the reactions obtained
were due to the composition of the Martian soil, and not because
of chemical reactions due to the presence of living organisms.

Now, Bob, you might want to point at each of the following words
with your finger, and you can move your mouth while you read the
words as you go along and maybe you'll get the meaning!

1. The Viking lander had a life science experiment on board.

2. The life science experiment got a reaction.

3. Senior scientists on the Viking project thought that the
    reaction was with chemicals in the Martian soil and not
    because of life forms there.

4. The purpose of the experiment was to find life. However, the
    senior people on the project thought that something else had
    been found, something the experimenter had not sought.

5. Instead of conducting a thorough review of the data, they
    junked it.

6. NASA administrators were remiss in not seeing to it that a
    thorough review of what might have been shown by the data
    obtained was conducted--even if the experiment did not yeild
    the results originally sought.

7. Only now, decades afterward, is someone taking a look at some
    of these data.

I can't make it any clearer than that Bob!

 >Can you cite evidence for this?

Evidence for what, Bob? God, are you really that obtuse!? Did
you, in fact, read the article about the re-evaluation of some
of the data from the Viking lander at this late date.

 >How would the large number of
 >scientists invoved in these experiments be controlled so as to
 >only find what was wished for?

Again what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?

Cite were I said anything like this? Again, did you read the
article that went with the original posting!?

 >Have any ideas on how such a hoax could have been carried out?

What hoax, Bob?

You really do have trouble reading!

Where did I mention anything about a hoax?

Again read carefully:

1. Experiments are generally designed to give a result, to try
    to prove or establish something. In this case life on Mars.

2. Sometimes experiments do not establish things conclusively.

3. Sometimes experimental results are in dispute.

4. Sometimes experiments fail.

5. Sometimes examining the results of failed experiments give
    greater insight than a complete sucessful experiment.

Since in this case, the results sought were not obtained, the
data should have been evaluated and reevaluated then at that
time. Not decades later.

Again, this is as simple as I can make it. I doubt that I got
through to you.

Hoaxes, conspiracy, not in the wildest of imagination did I say
anything about such junk! Only in your fevered brain did that
bubble up.

My objection here was to a failure of NASA to squeeze every
useful piece of information out of this experiment!

Do you feel insulted, Bob? Well, it is not half as insulted as
I feel by your silly post.


 >Clear skies,

Clear head, Bob, you really need one!


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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:59:07 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:38:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - McCoy


 >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:10:35 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 23:10:57 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >McCoy wrote:

 >>>P.S. Has there been spectral analysis started - that won't tell
 >>>the tale to some but might be interesting?

 >Bob responded

 >>This would also be a good idea if there is another sighting, but
 >>the second time would take some luck, and a little Edmund
 >>artificial diffraction grating in front of a 35-mm camera lense.
 >>One could only hope that the light is bright enough. I have
 >>used these with street and artificial lights, but it took a
 >>short time exposure.

 >As a matter of interest, an Edmund diffraction grating was used
 >during a "Bubba" sighting in Gulf Breeze ver nine year ago (Feb,
 >1992).  The spectrum obtained from "Bubba" was compared with
 >another spectrum, that of a red road flare, obtained right after
 >the Bubba sighting, using the same camera, same film, same
 >diffraction grating.

 >The two spectra were different.

 >Hence the red Bubba light was not from a road flare.
 >(Speculation had included road flares hanging from balloons... a
 >very dangerous thing to do over a populated area!)

 >Gulf Breeze "Bubba" has never been identified.

Bruce, Bob, and all.

My spectulation about spectral analysis wasn't original. it was
suggested off-list to me, I agree with the idea, however, and
put it out for discussion.

I wonder however, knowing little of spectral analysis - only
what I read in astronomy books and mags - is there a way of
identifing the source of the light, magnesium, sodium, et.al.
from the video, or the does the source have to be in the
presence of a spectrometer?


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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

               Congressman Rohrabacher Mentions Flying Saucers

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:52:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:43:58 -0400
Subject: Congressman Rohrabacher Mentions Flying Saucers


Hello List,

An interesting tidbit came from Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R.
CA) who chairs the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
during a July 12th hearing about the possible existence of ET
life. According to staff writer Randy Showstack of EOS
Transactions, the newsletter of the American Geophysical Union
(July 24, 2001), Rohrabacher mentioned the (obligatory) "little
green men." But this also was said, further on:


    Committee Chair Rohrabacher introduced a different
    dimension into the hearing when he brought up the
    subject of flying saucers and aliens visiting Earth;
    he said he is "very open-minded toward (UFO) citings
    [sic]."

    On this subject, Tyson [Neil Tyson, director of the
    Hayden Planetarium] told EOS, "I suspect that
    nearly, if not all, of what people are identifying
    as unidentified flying objects are simply (labeled
    thus) for want of a more enriched background on how
    to interpret what they are looking at."


So there we find one Congressman who is more open-minded than
most, while hearing from a planetarium director who behaves as
expected.


Jim Deardorff
Corvallis, Oregon








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 31

               Re: Cydonian Imperative: 07-31-01 - Pathfinder

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 01:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:50:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative: 07-31-01 - Pathfinder

The Cydonian Imperative
7-31-01

Sagan Memorial Station Revisited
by Mac Tonnies

When the Mars Pathfinder touched down on Mars, much online
speculation centered on the varied shapes of the rocks littering
the landing site. Many claimed to see structured, artificial
objects. While there was - and is - undoubtedly a lot to look at
in the Pathfinder panoramas, it's my opinion that nothing
visible in the images returned to Earth betrays artificial
origin.

That's not to say that we are looking at purely geological
debris. Geologist Ron Nicks has made an interesting, if
controversial, case for an artificial origin for the "Twin
Peaks" looming on the Martian horizon. His unusual contention is
bolstered, in my opinion, by the strikingly uniform square base
of the otherwise amorphic North Knob a few miles away.

[image]

"North Knob" as seen from the Mars Global Surveyor. Note unusual
square base.

In a recent post on The Enterprise Mission, Mike Bara and
Richard Hoagland return to the terrain surrounding Sagan
Memorial Station and identify  - not so tentatively - a Martian
"sphinx," supposedly with visible headdress, paws, and crouching
body similar if not identical to the Great Sphinx in Egypt.

I will not attempt to conceal my bias: I don't think there's an
artificial sphinx a short distance away from the Pathfinder
craft. However, the feature in question is vague enough to
entice - and confuse. If it really is a sphinx eternally guarding
the eroded Twin Peaks, what is it doing on a floodplain where,
as The Enterprise Mission's own Nicks asserts, the hypothetical
"casing" on the right-hand "pyramid" was washed away by
torrential Martian flows?

[image]

The alleged "sphinx" seen before the weathered bulk of a
suspected "ruined arcology."

If the "sphinx" had been constructed prior to the floods that
eroded the Twin Peaks and carpeted the foreground in rocky
debris (Pathfinder's "Rock Garden"), why is it still intact? A
more likely explanation may be that the "sphinx" is actually a
relatively small remnant of a much larger natural feature that
succumbed to erosion along with the blunted peaks on the
horizon.

My main complaint with the article by Bara/Hoagland is the
assertion that the alleged "sphinx" is facing east (like its
Giza counterpart). In order to support the notion that the
"sphinx" is aligned in a terrestrial manner, the article
rationalizes away the plainly visible length of the "sphinx" as
being ruined "temples" (!). Clearly, if the Pathfinder "sphinx"
is actually an analog of the Great Sphinx in Egypt (or the other
way around...), one must be prepared to address its shape, as
well as its possible alignment, with its earthly cousin.

Interestingly enough, the Great Sphinx in Egypt is a weirdly
"stretched"-looking work of art, as seen below:

[image]

Compare the elongated form above to that of the Bara/Hoagland's
Martian "sphinx," noting that the proposed "head" is on the
right:

[image]

There doesn't seem to be any way to align the "sphinx" in any
way other than how it appears on the Pathfinder photo.
Hoagland/Bara's suggestion that the "sphinx" is pointing east
requires an imaginative leap. Moreover, attributing the unwanted
bulk of the Martian landform to additional structures (when
there is no differentiation to justify concluding that it is
more than one formation in the first place) seems completely ad
hoc.

Obviously, the hypothesized Egyptian connection only makes sense
if the "sphinx" is pointing east. Unfortunately, the best
available data suggest that the "sphinx" - whatever it may prove
to be - is aligned north-south, a finding at odds with presumed
Egyptian parallels.

The Pathfinder site reveals a remarkable diversity of forms in
its rocks, but nothing that can be credibly cited as evidence of
intelligent design. We may in fact be looking at some of them
when we examine the Pathfinder panoramas, but we will not likely
know this until we are able to pick them up in our hands and
explore the weirdly geometric "North Knob" and beckoning Twin
Peaks firsthand.

-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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                 Cydonian Imperative: 07-31-01 - Pathfinder

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 01:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:53:31 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 07-31-01 - Pathfinder

The Cydonian Imperative
7-31-01

Sagan Memorial Station Revisited
by Mac Tonnies

When the Mars Pathfinder touched down on Mars, much online
speculation centered on the varied shapes of the rocks littering
the landing site. Many claimed to see structured, artificial
objects. While there was - and is - undoubtedly a lot to look at
in the Pathfinder panoramas, it's my opinion that nothing
visible in the images returned to Earth betrays artificial
origin.

That's not to say that we are looking at purely geological
debris. Geologist Ron Nicks has made an interesting, if
controversial, case for an artificial origin for the "Twin
Peaks" looming on the Martian horizon. His unusual contention is
bolstered, in my opinion, by the strikingly uniform square base
of the otherwise amorphic North Knob a few miles away.

[image]

"North Knob" as seen from the Mars Global Surveyor. Note unusual
square base.

In a recent post on The Enterprise Mission, Mike Bara and
Richard Hoagland return to the terrain surrounding Sagan
Memorial Station and identify  - not so tentatively - a Martian
"sphinx," supposedly with visible headdress, paws, and crouching
body similar if not identical to the Great Sphinx in Egypt.

I will not attempt to conceal my bias: I don't think there's an
artificial sphinx a short distance away from the Pathfinder
craft. However, the feature in question is vague enough to
entice - and confuse. If it really is a sphinx eternally guarding
the eroded Twin Peaks, what is it doing on a floodplain where,
as The Enterprise Mission's own Nicks asserts, the hypothetical
"casing" on the right-hand "pyramid" was washed away by
torrential Martian flows?

[image]

The alleged "sphinx" seen before the weathered bulk of a
suspected "ruined arcology."

If the "sphinx" had been constructed prior to the floods that
eroded the Twin Peaks and carpeted the foreground in rocky
debris (Pathfinder's "Rock Garden"), why is it still intact? A
more likely explanation may be that the "sphinx" is actually a
relatively small remnant of a much larger natural feature that
succumbed to erosion along with the blunted peaks on the
horizon.

My main complaint with the article by Bara/Hoagland is the
assertion that the alleged "sphinx" is facing east (like its
Giza counterpart). In order to support the notion that the
"sphinx" is aligned in a terrestrial manner, the article
rationalizes away the plainly visible length of the "sphinx" as
being ruined "temples" (!). Clearly, if the Pathfinder "sphinx"
is actually an analog of the Great Sphinx in Egypt (or the other
way around...), one must be prepared to address its shape, as
well as its possible alignment, with its earthly cousin.

Interestingly enough, the Great Sphinx in Egypt is a weirdly
"stretched"-looking work of art, as seen below:

[image]

Compare the elongated form above to that of the Bara/Hoagland's
Martian "sphinx," noting that the proposed "head" is on the
right:

[image]

There doesn't seem to be any way to align the "sphinx" in any
way other than how it appears on the Pathfinder photo.
Hoagland/Bara's suggestion that the "sphinx" is pointing east
requires an imaginative leap. Moreover, attributing the unwanted
bulk of the Martian landform to additional structures (when
there is no differentiation to justify concluding that it is
more than one formation in the first place) seems completely ad
hoc.

Obviously, the hypothesized Egyptian connection only makes sense
if the "sphinx" is pointing east. Unfortunately, the best
available data suggest that the "sphinx" - whatever it may prove
to be - is aligned north-south, a finding at odds with presumed
Egyptian parallels.

The Pathfinder site reveals a remarkable diversity of forms in
its rocks, but nothing that can be credibly cited as evidence of
intelligent design. We may in fact be looking at some of them
when we examine the Pathfinder panoramas, but we will not likely
know this until we are able to pick them up in our hands and
explore the weirdly geometric "North Knob" and beckoning Twin
Peaks firsthand.

-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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Clinton,

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:03:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:27:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Clinton,


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:00:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:20:37 -0500

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:41:10 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Hope you'll keep a corner in the undergound doghouse-bunker
 >>>for a skeptic or two (three might be too many).

 >>...Always room for real skeptics, Bobbo! I'm sure Mr. Goldstein
 >>would have their respected corner well appointed! It's the
 >>skepti-_bunkies_ that don't deserve a billet, even in a dog's
 >>house.

 >Ah, yes. Only self-proclaimed skeptics who are really deep
 >down believers are allowed.

Ha! Forgetting for a moment that you only describe yourself, sir
(you're just a believer of another flavor), you've demonstrated
abundantly that you'll have this your own way.

 >[Barf-Barf, whine-whine.]

Well - you got the Barf-Barf part right, at any rate, for sure.
The whine-whine part only works if it gets you in the house. I'd
call the pound.

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

Scepti-bunky: "...one too reflexively dogmatic with ears that
will not hear and eyes that will not see, and so one
constitutionally incapable of exposing anything at all" - a word
I believe _I_ coined. Correct me if I'm wrong.

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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

              Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:04:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:31:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights - Maccabee


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Ultralight Aircraft & N.J. Lights
 >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:59:07 -0700

 >My speculation about spectral analysis wasn't original. it was
 >suggested off-list to me, I agree with the idea, however, and
 >put it out for discussion.

 >I wonder however, knowing little of spectral analysis - only
 >what I read in astronomy books and mags - is there a way of
 >identifing the source of the light, magnesium, sodium, et.al.
 >from the video, or the does the source have to be in the
 >presence of a spectrometer?

Video (and photography) divides light very crudely into red,
blue and green components (or the complements of these colors).
You can see how accurately these three basic colors can
reconstruct a wide range of color variations. Hence you could,
with _accurate_ video, determine whether a light source was red,
orange, yellow, purple, blue-green, etc.

Unfortunately night time video of lights is generally not
_accurate_ because the electrons are overloaded by the light
brightness. The most egregious example is red light which
generally comes out as a bright white spot on the screen with a
diffuse reddish glow below the white. Why this is I am not sure,
but you can test this for yourself by videotaping red car
taillights at night.

Even though the video breaks the light into colors, it is not
sufficiently accurate to be used as a spectrum analyzer for
determination of the spectral "lines" (specific light colors or
frequencies/wavelengths) that make up the light. IN the case of
th comparison between a red flare and Bubba, which I discussed
in a previous message, the film and video of the sighting and
the flare both showed this odd "bright white spot with reddish
diffuse glow beneath it" effect. The images appeared the same as
far as color was concerned on the video. They also appeared the
same on the film at the center image. When you put a diffraction
grating into a camera you get an image at the center of the
picture which is undiffracted, and ten you get diffracted images
to the left and right (or above and below) te central image,.
The central image of the flare and the Bubba appeared the same.

The diffracted images were different. You can actually see this
for yourself(!) at my website:

http://brumac.8k.com/GulfBreeze/Bubba/GBBUBBA.html

You will have to scroll down to the Feb 7 sighting. In the
images of interest you will see the central image at the right
side and the diffracted image at the left side of the picture.
The central images of the UFO and of the red flare both show
bright central spots (overexposed) with red "rings" or annular
regions, with diffuse edges, around them, Careful inspection of
the diffracted images at the left side will show the difference.
(More blue and less green in the UFO image). Interesting to note
that the people watching the UFO and then the flare noticed a
difference in color, Scroll further down and you can see the
"spectrographs" made by Jeff Sainio by scanning the photo
images.

The point is that the direct (central) images looked the same as
far as color was concerned. It required the diffractrion grating
to break the color into its components.

If you can get a grating, simply stick it in front of the lens
of a camera and photograph streetlights at night... mercury or
sodium vapor, either type, give nice "line spectra" images. If
you have a laser, try that too.....









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                      Alien Life Discovered? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:36:03 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:52:43 -0400
Subject: Alien Life Discovered? - Balaskas


Hi Everyone.

Maybe we won't have to wait until the British launch their Mars
lander Beagle 2 in two years to finally prove that E.T. microbes
do exist. The Brits may have already been discovered alien life
in Earth's upper atmosphere! This discovery, if confirmed, would
strengthen the case that much larger E.T. "critters" have
already been observed from space by astronauts in Earth orbiting
spacecraft and that some E.T. fossils were indeed brought back
from the Moon by the unmanned Soviet 'Luna' spacecraft in the
1970s.

A quarter century later American scientists are still debating
if what they discovered on Mars from the several different
biology experiments aboard Viking 1 and 2 were living organisms.
With the overwhelming evidence from the Mars Global Surveyor, it
was just a few months ago that Americian space scientists
finally came to the conclusion that yes, there is water on Mars
which can support Earth-like E.T. microbes.

Nick Balaskas

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

Blob From Space May Hold Secret Of Life
by Nigel Hawkes
The Times (UK)

Scientists believe that they have found evidence of bacteria
from outer space on the edge of the Earth's atmosphere...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2001262143,00.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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:59:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:08:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Lehmberg


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:03:19 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:00:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >>>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:20:37 -0500

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:41:10 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>Hope you'll keep a corner in the undergound doghouse-bunker
 >>>>for a skeptic or two (three might be too many).

 >>>...Always room for real skeptics, Bobbo! I'm sure Mr. Goldstein
 >>>would have their respected corner well appointed! It's the
 >>>skepti-_bunkies_ that don't deserve a billet, even in a dog's
 >>>house.

 >>Ah, yes. Only self-proclaimed skeptics who are really deep
 >>down believers are allowed.

 >Ha! Forgetting for a moment that you only describe yourself, sir
 >(you're just a believer of another flavor), you've demonstrated
 >abundantly that you'll have this your own way.

 >>[Barf-Barf, whine-whine.]

 >Well - you got the Barf-Barf part right, at any rate, for sure.
 >The whine-whine part only works if it gets you in the house. I'd
 >call the pound.

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

 >Scepti-bunky: "...one too reflexively dogmatic with ears that
 >will not hear and eyes that will not see, and so one
 >constitutionally incapable of exposing anything at all" - a word
 >I believe _I_ coined. Correct me if I'm wrong.

... then, perhaps not.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=skeptibunkies#=100&hl=en&safe=off&scoring=d&rn
um=7&selm=850873593.17012%40dejanews.com

shows that it was used, correctly I might add, in 1996. 12/17 to
be exact. I'm still looking for an earlier reference. Sorry
about any outrage that this has caused... not!

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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                        Disclosure Project Witnesses

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:55:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:20:51 -0400
Subject: Disclosure Project Witnesses


Good Morning, List, All -

I have waited to see what happened with Greer's Project
Disclosure and to see if anyone bothered to do a little more
research into those 'insiders' who came forward to tell their
tales of government intrigue, conspiracy, and duplicity. Most
have taken a wait and see attitude while a few have suggested
that, at the very least, Greer is doing something to expose the
problem.

The point is that this whole thing hinges on the credibility of
those 'insiders' who have little or nothing in the way of
documentation and validation. We are left with only the stories
they tell and their claims of their inside positions. The
problem, as I have pointed out before, is that some of those
'insiders' don't seem to be who they claim to be.

Since Nick brought him up in the press release he wrote, let's
take a look at Cliff Stone, a Sergeant First Class with some
twenty-two years of military service. In the Vol. 50, No. 6,
1998 issue of UFO Magazine (US version), Stone wrote, "Four
years of my 22 � years in the military were spent in the
Republic of Vietnam."

Well, not quite, according to Stone's record. Very few men spent
four years in Vietnam and Stone wasn't one of them. He spent
three years there. Not much of an exaggeration, but an
exaggeration, none the less. I confess that I don't understand
the need to expand his Vietnam service to four years. I spent
just 11 months and 20 days in Vietnam and am quick to point out
that I had a single tour. Stone's record reflects a single tour,
but one that lasted about three times as long as mine.

Stone, in that same article wrote, "On my arrival, I was
assigned to 277 S&S Battalion Headquarters Company. I was never
trained as a clerk typist, although that was my MOS [military
occupation speciality]."

Well, not quite. He was assigned to the Headquarters and
Headquarters Company of the 227th S&S Battalion. I suppose this
is a mistake that can be attributed to a typographical error on
either Stone's or the magazine's part.

The real problem arises with his claim not to be trained as a
clerk/typist. According to the record, he spent eight weeks in
1968 in a military school learning how to be a clerk/typist. His
only other military training came about fourteen years later
when he attended an Army NCO school for five weeks, and in 1989
when he attended a seven week course labeled as 'Head Start'.

So, he was not only trained as a clerk/typist, all his military
assignments from that point on are as a clerk or administration
supervisor with a couple of short term assignments as a
'Detachment Sergeant' for about ten months and later as a Chief
Admin Clerk. He received no special training and there is nothing
to suggest any special assignments that would put him into a
position to see all the UFO related things he has claimed.

Finally, in what is going to sound rather snobbish, he had no
formal education beyond high school. The question that begs to
be asked here is why would the Army bring a high school
graduate, with training only as a clerk/typist into an
assignment that would require special training and, at the very
least, some specialized college education? Why would they do
this when they had access to highly trained specialists with
security clearances, and who could bring their special expertise
to bear on the subject. Stone might have been called in to type
the formal documents and to administer the paper work, but he
wouldn't have been given access to much of the specialized
information. And, of course, there is nothing in his record
about such a special assignment, which there should be, if it
existed.

Yes, you can speculate that Cliff's record was modified to cover
his covert assignments, but there is nothing there to indicate
this is the case. The assignments are routine and the chronology
is unbroken, and if he was doing what he claimed to be doing,
the notations for his assignments, while not being specific,
would be there to read. It is quite clear what he was doing,
when he was doing it, and why he was doing it. There really is
no time for him to be doing the covert UFO work that he claims.

By way of contrast, those men who were on special assignments,
who carried out the covert operations in Vietnam, show some
indications in their records of those highly classified
missions. There are records of the special schools they had
attended, of assignments that put them into the right areas at
the rights times, and other hints that suggest their service
wasn't routine. In Stone's case, none of those hints are there.
He was a clerk/typist for his military career, received no
special training and had no education from a civilian
institution that would have made his insights valuable.

If a journalist, interested in Greer's Project Disclosure
attempted to learn more about Stone, this is what he would find.
Since Stone's story of 57 alien races involved in the
exploration of Earth is almost all of Greer's information about
the alien physical presence (meaning he is the one who talked of
seeing bodies of aliens), Stone's story is one of the first to
be investigated. Since there is no substance to it, no
documentation to corroborate it, those journalists will reject
it as fantasy, and they will then wonder about the caliber of
Greer's other insiders.

Greer could have avoided this problem simply by checking out the
information himself. It's not difficult to obtain and provides
an interesting glimpse into Stone's background. And it points to
problems that will develop, not only with Stone's story, but
with, at a minimum, three other stories promoted by Greer.

There are enough of these sorts of problems that anything of
value that Greer and his Disclosure Project might have developed
will be lost. If he, meaning Greer, hasn't bothered to check the
backgrounds of his participants carefully enough to screen out
those who are less than reliable, it will taint the entire
project. It will doom the project to failure before it gets out
the door. It will be just one more black eye for ufology because
we would rather believe these stories are true than to learn
that they are fiction.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                 Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:46:30 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:20:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Young


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:03:19 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:00:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >Scepti-bunky: "...one too reflexively dogmatic with ears that
 >will not hear and eyes that will not see, and so one
 >constitutionally incapable of exposing anything at all" - a word
 >I believe _I_ coined. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Big Al:

Sounds about right, coming from you.

[grrrrrrrr...]


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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

               Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:48:31 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:37:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3 - Mortellaro


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:00:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:20:37 -0500

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:41:10 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Clinton, OSTP, and UFOs Part 3
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Hope you'll keep a corner in the undergound doghouse-bunker
 >>>for a skeptic or two (three might be too many).

 >>...Always room for real skeptics, Bobbo! I'm sure Mr. Goldstein
 >>would have their respected corner well appointed! It's the
 >>skepti-_bunkies_ that don't deserve a billet, even in a dog's
 >>house.

Dear Young Bob, List and Errol ... of course, Albert... Alfred,

 >Ah, yes. Only self-proclaimed skeptics who are really deep
 >down believers are allowed.

By deef-enition, a skeptic maintains an open mind. A
skeptibunker closes it firmly along with other appropriate
orifices through which, may come information with which to
inform. Hence the word "deef" as in Chateau Deef or better, as
in "Are you deaf deef?" Also appropriate is, "Have you no eyes
to see with, no ears to hear with, all these years? And "God
bless us, everyone." (Tim was rather tiney).

 >[Barf-Barf, whine-whine.]

Use of the word "barf" in virtually any contest... context, is
to be followed not by "whine-whine" but rather, by "wine, wine."
As in "No, no, no, no, I don't drink it no more. I'm tired of
wakin' up on the floor. Don't make me please, it only makes me
sneeze, and then it makes it hard to find the door."

Cha, cha, cha.

 >Bob Young

Old, Jim

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

Old Merriam (We're just friends) provides the following in his
thesaurus, for the word debunk (verb intransigent) "discover,
show up, uncloak, undress, unmask, unshroud"

Personally I prefer "undress." Anyone seen Pia?










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                          Filer's Files #31 - 2001

From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:07:10 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:37:15 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #31 - 2001


Filer's Files #31 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
July 29, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts, Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

OUR HUMAN SEARCH TO KNOW OUR WORLD AND THE UNIVERSE CONTINUES.
UFOs are reported in New York, New Jersey, New York, Delaware,
Florida, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Germany.

DISCS IN THE AIR, BUT ALSO IN ANCIENT BARROWS AND BURIAL MOUNDS

All around our world there are numerous ancient disc shaped
burial barrows, tumuli, or mounds that were built to bury our
ancestors. When I flew for the Air Force, I noticed many mounds
from the air in many parts of the world. Ohio, West Virginia,
Illinois, Florida, the Middle East, and the area around
Stonehenge in England have many examples that still exist.
Thousands were built in America, and 18,000 were built in
Britain 5000 years ago during the Bronze Age. Both in Great
Britain and America thousands of flint discs have been found
inside the American Indian and British burial mounds.

Recent evidence has also uncovered an ancient alphabet that
appears to have been used throughout the ancient world. The
burial barrows are constructed to a precise plan, where the
periphery of a circle is marked by posts and stakes and is
called a palisade. Now, 5000 years later, the barrows still
maintain their basic structure unless destroyed by grave
robbers or modern construction projects. Within this palisade
the dead were buried and a discoid shaped structure was built
that looks remarkably like present day UFOs. Not only was a
disc shape used in construction but also, each dead body was
buried with its own carved disc. Sometimes these small discs
came from a hundred miles away and were often carved or chipped
from flint stone. Archaeologists claim these disc barrow
builders were worshipers of the sun and moon. I asked
investigator John Thompson his opinion. He stated, our
ancestors saw "things" in the sky and intuitively, but probably
incorrectly and as modern m! an is doing, decided that Gods
from space were/are visiting us. They, however and more
astutely than us, made the death-heaven connection. Why bury
models of UFOs with themselves if they didn't think that these
entities "aboard them" were not connected to the so-called
spirit-world they were entering? Its obvious they saw linkage
between what they observed in the sky and where they believe
they were going after dying.

The archeologists maintain that the discs represented sun or
moon worship. Drawings and carvings have been made of the sun
and moon for ages, the sun is usually represented as a circle
with lines or rays and the moon is generally crescent shaped.
So we can hypothesize that our ancestors, like Ezekiel who saw
a UFO in the sky, probably worshipped or at least prayed these
craft would take them to heaven or at least keep their souls
alive. Discs are clearly depicted in the 2,500 year old palace
of Darius at Perseopolis in Iran. I think we can assume the
depiction's of disc craft with triple landing gear are accurate
and it makes good sense to assume they were in our skies in
ancient times.

These UFO discs have been depicted in 18,000 years old ancient
caves in France. The Egyptians believed a metal craft with a
metal door carried the souls of the dead who had led a good
life. Many of the objects found in the barrows carry out the
disc theme and its importance to the people. Clothing and capes
were fastened over the upper chest with a disc measuring two
inches in diameter. Jewelry, early armor and even the chief
structures of worship carried out the disc theme. Stonehenge
itself covered by wood would make a nicely shaped disc. Ancient
sites such as New Grange in Ireland, believed to be the world's
oldest structure is shaped as a disc. It is similar in
appearance to the Mound of Kinowth and both have the disc shape
with a rim and representations of windows that faithfully
imitate the real object. If the ancients intended to imitate
either the moon or the sun their structures would look very
different. Almost everywhere in the world myths, customs, and
rel! igion claim their individual ancestors came from space. I
suggest the history or the world is very different if we
recognize the importance of disc UFOs.

VATICAN THEOLOGIAN CLAIMS EXTRATERRESTRIAL CONTACT IS REAL

ROME -- Monsignor Corrado Balducci, an insider close to the
Pope has gone on national Italian television five times in
recent months to proclaim: Extraterrestrial contact is a real
phenomenon. The prelate announced that the Vatican is receiving
much information about extraterrestrials and their contacts
with humans from its Nuncios (embassies) in various countries,
such as Mexico, Chile and Venezuela. Monsignor Balducci said
that he is on a Vatican commission looking into
extraterrestrial encounters, and how to cope with the emerging
general realization of extraterrestrial contact. Balducci
provided the Roman Catholic Church's analysis of
extraterrestrials, emphasizing that these encounters "are NOT
demonic, they are NOT due to psychological impairment, they are
NOT a case of entity attachment, but these encounters deserve
to be studied carefully." Since Monsignor Balducci is a Vatican
expert exorcist, and since the Catholic Church has historically
demonized many new pheno! mena that were poorly understood, his
proclaiming the Vatican's non-censure of these encounters is
all the more remarkable. Balducci revealed he is closely
following this phenomenon. Thanks to World Gathering for Truth
http://www.world-action.co.uk

NEW YORK FLYING RECTANGLE

WOODMERE NASSAU COUNTY -- Two licensed professionals observed a
rectangular UFO on South Shore of Long Island for 6 to 10
minutes on July 25, 2001, The object was about 250 feet away at
treetop level at 11:54 PM. The object had green lights and was
over 300 feet in length. The object was first sighted in the
west and flew off to the east. The elevation varied but the
craft flew straight east. Thanks to WUFOD-I..1-368-at
MUFONHQ@aol.com.

NEW JERSEY LIGHTS

TRENTON -- The Trentonian News reports that several friends
videotaped a mystery light in sky on July 22, the day before
Monday's meteor sighting. On Sunday, P. J. Rosso, 11, and his
friend, Alex Stemm, 12, were lounging on the trampoline in
Lambertville. At about 8:30 PM, they noticed a very bright,
slow moving light in the sky. He went inside and got his
camcorder, and started filming and as twilight gave way to
darkness, the light was even more pronounced in the sky, much
brighter than anything else and then -- nothing. "Dude, it
disappeared!" Rosso could be heard yelling on the videotape at
exactly 9:13 p.m. as the light exploded like a Roman candle. A
second later, the light was gone. James Rosso said. "it looked
like debris was coming off it. Stemm went on record. "I guess
it was an UFO," he said. Both said the image of a bright light
disappearing from the sky was similar to that observed in
Carteret last Sunday, when nearly 100 people, including police
officer! s and one priest, witnessed a series of bright lights
blipping out of view. Thanks to the Trentonian News by Jeff
Edelstein July 25, and Gerry Farshores.-- farshores@inorbit.com

CARTERET -- Peter Davenport writes, "On Sunday, July 15, 2001,
the UFO incident may have lasted for 35 to 40 minutes, from
0010 to 0050 hours." The lights may have been visible from as
far away as 10 to 40 miles. The lights reportedly were preceded
by an immense flash that illuminated the NJ turnpike, and which
reportedly occurred simultaneously to the appearance of a
triangular shaped craft over Sayreville, NJ. The event was not
related to 1) meteor activity, 2) reentering space debris, or
3) any kind of known aircraft. Reports of sightings of strange
craft were reported from as far away as Ontario, Canada, and
Virginia just minutes before the event. Witnesses reported
seeing multiple lights in triangular formations, and one
disc-shaped object was reported from the south shore of Long
Island, NY. The possibility that the event was caused by flares
has not been ruled out, but that possibility raises a whole
host of other questions. If they were some type of flare, who
wa! s able to launch them undetected, and how did those
individuals succeed in getting them all in the air at the same
time? How did they ignite them all at once? Why was an official
investigation not initiated? Why was some kind of residue not
seen falling from the sky? Wouldn't this be a severe fire
hazard, if, in fact, people are launching flares over populated
areas, airports, refineries, and fuel storage tanks? --Several
seemingly identical events have been reported to NUFORC over
the last 18 months. They were reported from Rockford on
February 11, & 16, March 10, 2000; January 11, 2001; February
10, and March 18, 2001. The objects have been seen over
Prescott, AZ, on multiple occasions, as well. Please see
entries on the NUFORC website. Thanks to Peter Davenport
www.ufocenter.com

Colm Kelleher writes, some of NIDS witnesses are also coming
out against flares (EW 6,7,8 and 9 we specifically asked them
the question and they came out against flares). Note the ABC
commentary that you quoted in Filer's Files"overinterpreted" my
statement that "one hypothesis we are following" is military
flares. There are, of course, several others. Thanks to Colm
Kelleher , NIDS.

DELAWARE EGG SHAPED UFO

SMYRNA -- On July 23, 2001, the witness who is a pilot observed
an egg shaped UFO with a white trail moving very fast. The
front of the egg was blue and it was moving up Route 13 in
Northern Delaware headed towards New Jersey. The fast moving
egg shaped UFO was blue in front and the trail was white. The
witness stated, "I am a pilot, and it was no plane." The color
was a white bluish. The weather was sunny about 86 degrees with
blue sky and some clouds. I lost it behind a cloud.

GEORGIA INVESTIGATIONS

ROSWELL -- Tom Sheets director of GA MUFON reports that
investigation of the June 17, 2001, case has indicated it was
most likely a meteor. This same evening in Lawrenceville
Georgia, Jim Clifford, MUFONGA's Deputy Director for
Investigation, and his wife, were outside and reported a large
green meteor that passed over. Both Jim and Mrs. Clifford
immediately recognized it as a meteor.

LA GRANGE -- Investigator John Thompson writes, "I see UFOs,
they see UFOs." That is what an abductee told me once. You
dabble with the dark forces and you'll get whatever you think
you should get. I have been working on what I now call a "dark
saucer" case. It was one of my first close-encounter cases with
multiple witnesses. Only now, nearly six years later, have I
learned the full demonic aspects of the case. They summoned the
dead and got much, much more! One lady was pulled out of bed by
an entity that "was not human." The dead appeared. A flying
saucer, hovering only 20 feet above a pasture, appeared for a
whole neighborhood to watch. After many seances, luminous white
Ping-Pong size balls appeared. The flying saucer had portholes
and shot pulse-like rays to the ground as families watched.
There were reports of dark molten slag like material found
following the sighting (unverified still despite two
independent reports). Deaths and ill-health following the sigh!
tings of balls, UFO and entities. As one witness told me
everybody connected with the events has suffered since. Many,
true UFOs in my estimation are manifestations. According to
some, UFOs can be called up. This is no different from holding
seances and trying to talk to the dead. Its all connected and
anybody hoping to see a UFO should be careful as they have a
good chance of getting more than they bargained for. Thanks to
John Thompson former MUFON State Director.

FLORIDA PIN BALL CHASES CAR

GREEN SWAMP -- On July 13, 2001, two witnesses were driving
home on State Road 474 west of Orlando at 9:30 P.M. when they
noticed a pin ball like object. While driving Witness #1 and
his son (13 year old) saw a, 30 to 40 inch diameter ball in
rear window of his automobile. It was reflecting back the
details of the rear lights of the car. It was shimmering as
they drove and they both had the feeling that they were being
watched. He drove faster thinking that "Something was coming on
us." As he looked at the rear view mirror the reflection was as
a convex chromium surfaced object (pin ball) and he said he had
difficulty focusing on it. He thought the object to be 3 to 4
feet behind his car. He said that there was something blocking
the night sky as he looked up. When they reached the end of the
road they noted that there was an increase of light without any
visible shadows. Both witnesses were frightened. When they
examined the car upon arriving at home, there was noth! ing on
the car or back window, no oily residue. Investigator's note:
The witnesses wanted this information to be recorded. Witness
#1 needed to talk to someone about this event. He has had
another sighting three years ago and could not share it with
anyone. He just recently became aware of MUFON and their hot
line number here in the Tampa Bay area. They do not want to
have an investigation done at this time. Thanks to Lorraine
Gerber. Reported to Tampa Bay MUFON Hot line at(727)595-7964

FIREBALL SEEN ALONG EAST COAST

PENNSYLVANIA -- The Earth is hit by 400 tons of space debris
each day. Thousands of people witnessed a fireball move from
east to west over the East Coast. "It was most likely the size
of size of a basketball, that created an air blast," said Don
Yeomans who oversees NASA's Near Earth Object Program. They put
on quite a display by forming a giant fireball trail before
exploding. "This sort of thing's not unusual, but it seldom
happens over a densely inhabited area." Many residents near
Williamsport, PA heard loud explosions at 6:19 PM, while
windows were shattered in Salladasburg, PA. DOD satellites with
IR sensors detected the impact of a bolide over the Eastern US
on July 23, 2001, at 22:19:11 UTC. The object was first
detected at an altitude of 82 km at 41.5 North Latitude, 75.6
West Longitude, and tracked down to an altitude of 32 km at
41.3 North, 77.3 West. The impact was simultaneously detected
by space based visible wavelength sensors operated by the US
Departm! ent of Energy. The total radiated energy was
approximately 1.27 X 10^12 joules. Some who caught the
spectacle imagined it the size of a house or a car. The object
emitted a rainbow of colors.

PUERTO RICO -- Luz Guzman reports that on July 23, 2001, a fast
moving airborne object probably a fireball was observed at 7:30
PM, and three minutes later the object exploded. Jos Muoz
Vzquez, an archaeologist observed a static white light grew in
size as it descended over Cabo Rojo. The tail oscillated
considerably, with sparks, an explosion, more sparks and a
golden white light. No sounds were heard and no smoke was seen.
The fireball was like the tail of a very small comet. The
explosion was like golden fireworks. Thanks to Institute of
Hispanic Ufology. Special thanks to Lucy Guzman, www.ovni.net
Translation (C)

WASHINGTON LARGE TRIANGULAR CRAFT SPOTTED AND FILMED

TROUT LAKE -- John Novak reports that on July 19, 2001, around
11:00 PM, a large ship flew over the Gilliland Ranch expanding
into a brilliant yellow-orange light, then dimmed out as it
left the area. This object and large lights were filmed over
Mt. Adams. Several other high flyers displayed incredible
speeds and turns, some making complete U turns. On July 22nd a
guest was taking off Trout Lake airport in his small plane at
12:30 PM, when a UFO flew directly under his plane. The pilot
was in radio contact with witnesses and circled to try to see
the UFO, but it stayed directly underneath him. The same pilot
saw a UFO the previous night over Mt. Adams. It lit up, sent
down a beam, then dropped down into the same beam and took off.
July 23rd a massive triangular ship came in from the north and
was met by a golden colored smaller ship. The film shows three
distinct lights in an elongated triangle that moved in unison,
keeping their exact distance. Tom Dongo, a well-know! n UFO
investigator, spent two weeks at the ranch and will return to
Sedona MUFON with some incredible footage. Thanks to John Novak
webmaster@cazekiel.org

CANADA FOUR FLYING TRIANGLES

REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN -- Bridget reports that four UFOs were
sighted on Monday. July 22, 2001, at 12:30 AM. Four objects
were seen heading south from the Regina area. They were
triangular with an orange haze discharging from the base. They
approached traveling approximately 55 K.P.H (30 MPH) prior to
stopping. They paused and hovered for several seconds and
departed out of sight moving toward the south southwest in less
than a second. Thanks to Bridget, briquette4000@yahoo.com

MEXICAN SIGHTINGS CONTINUE AT VOLCANO

Troy Allen called on July 30, 2001, to report he is monitoring
the Popocatptl Volcano video camera site near Mexico City on
an almost daily basis. The volcano's observation camera is
showing many UFOs often in a triangle formation. Over seventy
images of the UFOs have been seen in recent weeks. Three dark
UFOs can be seen flying around the area often in a triangle
shape. UFO s have had an interest in the volcano since the
December 21, 1994, eruption, ending decades of slumber. It is
recommended not to approach the volcano to less than 12 km from
the crater, although the way between Santiago Xalitzintla and
San Pedro Nexapa, including Paso de Corts, is open for
controlled circulation. RI MUFON's Janet Bucci indicates she
saw UFOs at the site on July 3, 2001. Small elliptical colored
light that changes color (green, blue, pink, purple, yellow)
that is more or less stationary and a larger roundish or
flattened whitish light that moves from snapshot to snapshot.
There a! re often at least three UFOs in the photos at:
http://looknowings.homestead.com/camview.html and
http://www.cenapred.unam.mx/mvolcan.html. Thanks to Troy Allen
http://www.alienjoes.com.

NICARAGUA UFOs REPORTED IN NEWSPAPER,

NORTH GRANADA -- Augusto Cermeo reporter from the El Nuevo
Diario claims that UFOs are flying almost nightly over the El
Domingazo neighborhood, according to the accounts provided by
at least a dozen local residents. One day we were approached by
our friend Sebastin Arista Guadamuz, 38, who told us he, his
wife and many other locals have seen flying saucers around 7:00
PM almost every night over a distillery. A round object flying
over the neighborhood flew to the east. The Aristas' even say
that their daughter saw the strange, saucer-shaped craft which
crossed the sky, leaving two fiery tails in its wake. Rosa
Isabel Trejos Nuez, 28, saw "something like a fireball with a
fiery tail" on Wednesday night. "We also saw it pass in early
December." She was calm and relaxed, stating that there is no
fear whatsoever as a result of this nocturnal vision. Alvaro
Luisa says he and his sister saw "how something round broke off
from the object and dropped downward on Wednesday nig! ht, on
the south side. It flew downward as though about to land. As it
went down, the light became brighter, as thought it was looking
for a runway." The saucer was green in color, but as it went
downward, an immense yellow light turned on." (snip.) Thanks to
Institute of Hispanic Ufology. Translation (C) 2001. Special
Thanks to Gloria Coluchi.

BRAZIL RELUCTANT WITNESS

AMAZON RAIN FOREST - Robert writes, "I've only recently learned
about you - I'm not informed on the issues of UFO research. I'm
just an average guy with a good career, marriage, family and
mortgage. But when I read a statement you made about the damage
that criticism and ridicule you've been subjected to, I felt a
tinge of cowardice for not talking about my own experiences to
my friends and family." I don't understand what these objects
are but I know they're real and I suspect that many reports are
genuine. In 1962, in the Amazon rain forest, we witnessed a
most remarkable event at close proximity and I'm still puzzled
as to what I was seeing. I've questioned my own grasp of
reality over this at times and certainly would not 'go public'
with what we saw. I saw something unusual that could be
acknowledged, but discussing the facts surrounding this
encounter would immediately render me a target of ridicule or
brand me an imaginative liar. I'm now 53 and have decided that!
there is at this time another history being written -- one that
will never include us as willing and knowing players. Either
people like you and thousands of others are just plain nuts or
there now exists the greatest secret of all, one we may never
learn. Perhaps we're not supposed to learn for a good reason.
Thanks to Robert - rbcs@mpinet.net (rbcs)

GERMANY ORANGE GLOWING LIGHTS

ASCHERSLEBEN -- On July 23, 2001, the witness was working at
his computer when his friend told him over Internet to look at
the sky. The witness asked his mother to look as well and they
both saw a glowing light that was not far away. The witness
reports he saw an orange light moving very fast from left to
right. By this time, six of us saw these objects. I called my
friend and we met late in the night to watch out for more
objects and saw more orange lights moving on the sky and then
flying away with very high speed.

TURKEY NEW INTERNATIONAL UFO MUSEUM

ISTANBUL -- UFO enthusiasts around the globe should be aware of
the first International UFO Museum of EASTERN -EUROPE, BALKANS
AND MIDDLE EAST is going to be opened in Istanbul in October
2001. The MUSEUM is located at the center of the 10 million
populated city of Istanbul, which connects Asia, and Europe
together. The aim of this project is to inform not only the
Turkish citizens but also millions of tourists about the UFO
phenomenon. The International UFO Museum includes the UFO
Chronicle of the world, the worldwide sighting map, information
about archaeological ruins and traces, tablets, ancient
cultures and their connections to E.T's. There will be an
extensive library, video, and meeting rooms. The museum is also
looking for donations of data and funds. By taking your stance
as a citizen of this Planet and by standing together the whole
Truth will be known! Thanks to Haktan Akdogan -
ufotr@netone.com.tr.

MARS HAD CYCLE CLIMATE JUST AS OUR EARTH

Mitch Battros writes, It appears our older neighbor, Mars,
shows climate cycles just as our own. This makes for an odd
deduction. Either one would have to agree there was industrial
producing life on Mars, or, human and other fossil fuel
pollutants play a much smaller role in climate change than do
most of what our environmentalist claim. Heck, either way is
one exciting notion to consider. I like the active Martian life
theory myself. Remember, Dr. Tom Van Flandren Naval Observatory
Astronomer, said from the evidence he has put together over the
many years, he believes Mars was a type of Disneyland for our
ancestors. I love this idea, and I do not dismiss it. I have
interviewed Tom many times and believe him to be the real
thing, both academically and personally. NASA will likely stick
with the recent proof of Mars Climate cycles is due to the Sun.
Yes, it appears we have more proof of what we are experiencing
here on Earth, what is known as "Global Warming," is most! ly
related to solar cycles. Equation: Sunspots = Solar Flares =
Magnetic Shift = Shifting Ocean and Jet Stream Currents =
Extreme Weather. John Mustard a geologist at Brown University
claims "New images from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft
show the terrain is breaking down, indicating climate change
and perhaps modern Martian ice ages." This is great news for
those of us who have believed Mars was (is) a living planet. Is
it possible life on Earth was seeded by Mars? Was there
intelligent life on Mars, which could be our ancestors? Thanks
to Mitch Battros Producer - Earth Changes TV
http://www.earthchangestv.com/secure/Breaking_News/July2001/072
6mars.htm, http://www.earthchangesTV.com

CYDONIA -- Steve Wingate on his website Anomalous Images, has
discovered an interesting grouping of bright rectangular
"cells" on the Martian surface. Wingate's formation appears to
be either some sort of ruined infrastructure or a result of
surface fracturing, perhaps due to faulting. The lines almost
appear as drawings and similar to the Nazca lines in Peru.
Small blisters or domes that suggest cultural structures are
also present along with grid complexes. They're morphologically
distinct and unlikely to be caused by the same mechanism that
produced the "cells." It's entirely possible that the cells are
the result of natural forces. John Fleming's book is, "The War
of All Against All." Thanks to Steve Wingate.
http://www.anomalous-images.com/mgs/northruins.html.

Editor's Note: Often strange structures, domes, pyramids, are
found on Mars. Individually, most can be explained away,
collectively they point to an ancient civilization once existed
or has gone underground. Hundreds of meteors probably strike
Mars daily just as they do on earth. We are lucky to have our
atmosphere to protect us, while Mars is virtually unprotected.
Under these conditions life on Mars likely went underground and
attempted to reach its closest neighbor. I have been looking
both at images of Mars and on Earth for evidence of this
hypothesis. Throughout, the Earth and Mars there are strange
barrows, burial grounds, or monuments to the dead. Our lives
are rather short and most wish to be remembered or to live on.
Cemeteries and burial grounds give us a clue to the past.

NEW SPACE BOMBER

The United States Air Force is exploring the development of a
'space-bomber' which could destroy targets any where in the
world within half an hour. A sub-orbital bomber would be
important for conducting bombing missions any where in the
world and technically it would not go into orbit, so it would
not be a space craft. The reusable spacecraft called the X-33
Venture Star, under development by NASA and Lockheed Martin
with some changes would probably be the basis for the design.
The Space bomber would provide a major advance over the B-2.
American embassies around the world have been instructed to
tell host governments that the US intends to test not just
land-based missile interceptors, but 'other technologies and
basing modes' for such weapons. When announcements occur about
advanced weapons systems, you can assume with some accuracy
that an experimental aircraft is already flying. The Bush
administration is going all out for more modern weapons.

UFO / ALIEN PRODUCTS GALORE! -- Help support UFO research you
can read anytime you want! The Black Vault, a website devoted
to uncovering the truth with the UFO cover-up, is entering it's
fifth year in existence. Support is needed, and when you shop
in this store, you get the satisfaction of quality products,
with the knowledge that you have help support one of the
largest ventures of it's kind to preserve, house and provide
free to the public, over 82,000 pages of government documents.
 From a UFO CD-ROM with over 5,000 documents, to alien driver's
licenses, this store has it all! Come help our venture, while
supporting UFO research! http://www.blackvaultstore.com Call us
at toll free, (866) 828-2858 or (818) 886-0131.

US GOVERNMENT UFO PROOF RELEASED: Audio tapes of a genuine UFO
Alert at Edwards Air Force base and studied by the Foreign
Technology Division at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, are now
available for distribution to the public. Sam Sherman's audio
documentary tape called THE EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE ENCOUNTER on
the night of October 7, 1965, uses the actual voice recordings
provided by the Air Force. During this event 12 high tech
luminous UFOs invade secure air space and came down low over
the runways at Edwards AFB. Tower operator Sgt. Chuck Sorrels
spotted them and notified the Air Defense Command. Sgt. Sorrels
is heard on the original tapes and in a new segment where he
verifies the event as it is heard on the archival recordings.
The UFOs are described and a decision is made to launch F-106
fighter interceptors. You are there for an important part of
UFO history. Hear it for yourself, it's the best UFO tape ever
made. Tape cost is $14.95 each plus $2.00 for shippin! g -
total $16.95 -- (for overseas orders-out of US - add $6.00
shipping cost --total -- $20.95) you can send either a personal
check or money order to: Independent International Pictures
Corp, Box 565, Dept. GF, Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL for $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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                   Re: Disclosure Project Witnesses - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:38:33 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:37:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Disclosure Project Witnesses - Hall


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:55:19 EDT
 >Subject: Disclosure Project Witnesses
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Good Morning, List, All -

 >I have waited to see what happened with Greer's Project
 >Disclosure and to see if anyone bothered to do a little more
 >research into those 'insiders' who came forward to tell their
 >tales of government intrigue, conspiracy, and duplicity. Most
 >have taken a wait and see attitude while a few have suggested
 >that, at the very least, Greer is doing something to expose the
 >problem.

 >The point is that this whole thing hinges on the credibility of
 >those 'insiders' who have little or nothing in the way of
 >documentation and validation. We are left with only the stories
 >they tell and their claims of their inside positions. The
 >problem, as I have pointed out before, is that some of those
 >'insiders' don't seem to be who they claim to be.

 >Since Nick brought him up in the press release he wrote, let's
 >take a look at Cliff Stone, a Sergeant First Class with some
 >twenty-two years of military service. In the Vol. 50, No. 6,
 >1998 issue of UFO Magazine (US version), Stone wrote, "Four
 >years of my 22 � years in the military were spent in the
 >Republic of Vietnam."

 >Well, not quite, according to Stone's record. Very few men spent
 >four years in Vietnam and Stone wasn't one of them. He spent
 >three years there. Not much of an exaggeration, but an
 >exaggeration, none the less. I confess that I don't understand
 >the need to expand his Vietnam service to four years. I spent
 >just 11 months and 20 days in Vietnam and am quick to point out
 >that I had a single tour. Stone's record reflects a single tour,
 >but one that lasted about three times as long as mine.

 >Stone, in that same article wrote, "On my arrival, I was
 >assigned to 277 S&S Battalion Headquarters Company. I was never
 >trained as a clerk typist, although that was my MOS [military
 >occupation speciality]."

 >Well, not quite. He was assigned to the Headquarters and
 >Headquarters Company of the 227th S&S Battalion. I suppose this
 >is a mistake that can be attributed to a typographical error on
 >either Stone's or the magazine's part.

 >The real problem arises with his claim not to be trained as a
 >clerk/typist. According to the record, he spent eight weeks in
 >1968 in a military school learning how to be a clerk/typist. His
 >only other military training came about fourteen years later
 >when he attended an Army NCO school for five weeks, and in 1989
 >when he attended a seven week course labeled as 'Head Start'.

 >So, he was not only trained as a clerk/typist, all his military
 >assignments from that point on are as a clerk or administration
 >supervisor with a couple of short term assignments as a
 >'Detachment Sergeant' for about ten months and later as a Chief
 >Admin Clerk. He received no special training and there is nothing
 >to suggest any special assignments that would put him into a
 >position to see all the UFO related things he has claimed.

 >Finally, in what is going to sound rather snobbish, he had no
 >formal education beyond high school. The question that begs to
 >be asked here is why would the Army bring a high school
 >graduate, with training only as a clerk/typist into an
 >assignment that would require special training and, at the very
 >least, some specialized college education? Why would they do
 >this when they had access to highly trained specialists with
 >security clearances, and who could bring their special expertise
 >to bear on the subject. Stone might have been called in to type
 >the formal documents and to administer the paper work, but he
 >wouldn't have been given access to much of the specialized
 >information. And, of course, there is nothing in his record
 >about such a special assignment, which there should be, if it
 >existed.

 >Yes, you can speculate that Cliff's record was modified to cover
 >his covert assignments, but there is nothing there to indicate
 >this is the case. The assignments are routine and the chronology
 >is unbroken, and if he was doing what he claimed to be doing,
 >the notations for his assignments, while not being specific,
 >would be there to read. It is quite clear what he was doing,
 >when he was doing it, and why he was doing it. There really is
 >no time for him to be doing the covert UFO work that he claims.

 >By way of contrast, those men who were on special assignments,
 >who carried out the covert operations in Vietnam, show some
 >indications in their records of those highly classified
 >missions. There are records of the special schools they had
 >attended, of assignments that put them into the right areas at
 >the rights times, and other hints that suggest their service
 >wasn't routine. In Stone's case, none of those hints are there.
 >He was a clerk/typist for his military career, received no
 >special training and had no education from a civilian
 >institution that would have made his insights valuable.

 >If a journalist, interested in Greer's Project Disclosure
 >attempted to learn more about Stone, this is what he would find.
 >Since Stone's story of 57 alien races involved in the
 >exploration of Earth is almost all of Greer's information about
 >the alien physical presence (meaning he is the one who talked of
 >seeing bodies of aliens), Stone's story is one of the first to
 >be investigated. Since there is no substance to it, no
 >documentation to corroborate it, those journalists will reject
 >it as fantasy, and they will then wonder about the caliber of
 >Greer's other insiders.

 >Greer could have avoided this problem simply by checking out the
 >information himself. It's not difficult to obtain and provides
 >an interesting glimpse into Stone's background. And it points to
 >problems that will develop, not only with Stone's story, but
 >with, at a minimum, three other stories promoted by Greer.

 >There are enough of these sorts of problems that anything of
 >value that Greer and his Disclosure Project might have developed
 >will be lost. If he, meaning Greer, hasn't bothered to check the
 >backgrounds of his participants carefully enough to screen out
 >those who are less than reliable, it will taint the entire
 >project. It will doom the project to failure before it gets out
 >the door. It will be just one more black eye for ufology because
 >we would rather believe these stories are true than to learn
 >that they are fiction.

 >KRandle

Kevin & list,

This is well-stated and contains a very important object lesson.
A similar "profile" should be done about every one of the
Disclosure witnesses (and any others who come along), since
Greer didn't bother to do so and obviously is totally
uncritical. In that way we could start winnowing out the
embellishers and wanna-bes and narrow it down to the important
witnesses who should be heard.

How about some NASA and other Government agency personnel
checking on the credentials of the witnesses who claimed to
observe or participate in various cover-up activities for those
agencies? It is naive beyond belief to simply accept
undocumented tales at face value.


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 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                    Colm Kelleher <NIDS@lb.bcentral.com>

From: Colm Kelleher <NIDS@lb.bcentral.com>
Date: 31 Jul 2001 21:57:03 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:37:15 -0400
Subject: Colm Kelleher <NIDS@lb.bcentral.com>


We have moved our Las Vegas offices.

The following is our new mailing address:

National Institute for Discovery Science
4975 Polaris Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89118-1629

Our phone, fax, and e-mail remain unchanged.

Please update your records.


Thank you.