UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Jun 1999

  Jun 1:

   Re: Roger Sandell Memorial Essay Competition - Larry Hatch [4]
   Re: An Open Letter To A Friend, Jeff Rense... - Jim Mortellaro [32]
   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Jim Deardorff [30]
   The Millennium Project News - May 31, 1999 - Paul Anderson - TMP /
   CPR-Canada [89]
   Appeal From CUFORG [Cornwall UFO Research Group] - Ian Darlington [18]
   Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999 - Karl Pflock [13]
   Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999 - Greg Sandow [47]
   Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999 - Mark Cashman [15]
   Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999 - John Velez [25]
   Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999 - Dennis Stacy [33]
   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Tony Spurrier [34]
   Dr. Leir's Recovery - Derrel Sims [85]
   Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999 - Greg Sandow [3]

  Jun 2:

   Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity? - Kim Burrafato [0]
   Re: Steve Neill Walks - Steve Neill [10]
   Note To UK Readers - John Rimmer [9]
   (Skyopen) Lecture in Hong Kong - Jean-Michel Mariojouls [17]
   'Stein Online' - Constance Clear - UFO UpDates - Toronto [11]
   Re: (Skyopen) Lecture in Hong Kong - Brian Cuthbertson [6]
   Australian UFO Research Network/OZ File Report - Diane Harrison [21]
   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Jenny Randles [17]
   Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity? - Judith Dale [20]
   UFO Centre To Be Launched In Window Area, UK - Jenny Randles [23]
   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Jim Deardorff [57]
   Recent Scotland UFO Activity - Case Feedback - Dave Ledger [729]
   Nick Popes Weird World - June '99 - Georgina Bruni [142]

  Jun 3:

   Re: *U* Map: North America 1947 - Bob Young [79]
   Re: Nick Pope On 'The Sheffield Incident' - Max Burns [71]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [32]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [21]
   Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity? - Henny van der Pluijm [28]
   Re: (Skyopen) Lecture in Hong Kong - Brian Cuthbertson [9]
   Re: 'Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO Experiencers' - Tim D. Brigham
   [16]
   Re: Dr. Leir's Recovery - Derrel Sims [23]
   UFOINFO Progress Report - John Hayes [19]

  Jun 4:

   Intruders Foundation Website - John Velez [33]
   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Tony Spurrier [38]
   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Tony Spurrier [26]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Jerome Clark [20]
   Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity? - Jim Mortellaro [60]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Steven Kaeser [11]
   The Prophets Conference - Port Townsend - prophets@maui.net [132]
   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Dennis Stacy [77]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - James Easton [298]
   Filer's Files #22 --1999 - George A. Filer [410]
   UK UFO Weekend - Sue Lawrence [36]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Bruce Maccabee
   [54]
   UFOs in Piracicaba and Sao Pedro, Brazil - Thiago Ticchetti [25]
   Re: Intruders Foundation Website - Alfred Lehmberg [38]
   Ted Roach? - Roy Hale [10]
   Re: *U* Map: North America 1947 - Bob Young [17]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [54]

  Jun 5:

   Re: Intruders Foundation Website - UFO UpDates - Toronto [46]
   Re: UK UFO Weekend - Tom Carey [6]
   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Jim Deardorff [43]
   Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99 - Rense E-News [241]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Jerry Black [142]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - James Easton [151]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Jerry Black [120]
   Larry Hatch Away For A Week - Larry Hatch [10]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [66]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [20]
   Resignation - Jim Mortellaro [13]
   Alfred's Odd Ode #306 - Alfred Lehmberg [100]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Jerome Clark [16]

  Jun 6:

   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [17]
   Re: Resignation - John Velez [28]
   Re: 'Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO Experiencers' - Julie Bedford [5]
   Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99 - Dan Geib [14]
   What's New at Magonia - Mark Pilkington [13]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Joe Murgia [23]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Ron Decker [26]

  Jun 7:

   UpDates Server Problem - Moderator UFO UpDates - Toronto [13]
   Re: The Enigma Channel - John Hayes [76]
   BWW Media Alert 19990606 - BufoCalvin@aol.com [217]
   List Subscribers - UFO UpDates - Toronto [9]
   Re: Protocol Bookburning Conspiracy - Stan Friedman [35]
   Nasa Programming Computer To Seek Alien Life - Stig Agermose [44]
   He's Keeping Eye On Close Encounters - Stig Agermose [50]
   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Joachim Koch [134]
   Students On A Mission To Find Life In Space - Stig Agermose [25]

  Jun 8:

   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - James Easton [133]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - David Rudiak [111]

  Jun 7:

   Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999 - Martin Phillips [8]

  Jun 8:

   UFO History Workshop - Jan Aldrich [90]
   Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999 - Martin Phillips [8]
   An Educational Discourse - Josh Goldstein [41]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - David Rudiak [79]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold - David Rudiak [352]
   An Apology - UFO UpDates - Toronto [13]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Brian Cuthbertson
   [6]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Donald Ledger [8]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Bruce Maccabee [62]
   UFO Report By Ex-RAF Radar Personnel - Dave Ledger [110]
   US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon - Stig Agermose [51]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Bruce Maccabee
   [48]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Bruce Maccabee
   [115]
   The Books Of Charles Fort Now Online - Stig Agermose [47]
   The Millennium Project News - June 7, 1999 - Paul Anderson -
   TMP/CPR-Canada [86]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Bruce Maccabee [9]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - GT McCoy [25]
   Re: UFO History Workshop - Jan Aldrich [29]
   Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much For - Nick Balaskas [32]
   Crop Circle Message - Maurizio Baiata [46]
   Re: Intruders Foundation Website - Sue Kovios [23]
   Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99 - Richard G Brown [8]

  Jun 9:

   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [34]
   What Have We Really Learned - Jerry Black [166]
   Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting? - Steven J. Dunn [10]
   Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999 - Jenny Randles [13]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - John Velez [8]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [23]
   'Parchment Parachutes' - Prof. Moore Explains - James Easton [98]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold - David Rudiak [191]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Donald Ledger [82]
   Info About Mr. Haktan Akdogan? - Thiago Ticchetti [9]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Bruce Maccabee
   [160]
   NIDS Roper Poll Results - UFO UpDates - Toronto [78]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [43]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - James Easton [41]
   Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon - Josh Goldstein [18]
   Re: UFO Report By Ex-RAF Radar Personnel - Jenny Randles [57]
   Re: Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much For - Kim Burrafato [8]
   Re: - Jerome Clark [123]
   Re: Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting? - Georgina Bruni [17]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - David Rudiak [91]
   Re: Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting? - David Rudiak [93]
   Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99 - Nick Balaskas [19]
   Forgione's Balducci Interview - Adriano Forgione [203]

  Jun 10:

   Re: Info About Mr. Haktan Akdogan? - Stan Friedman [7]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - James Easton [265]
   Re: Guide To U.S. Sightings - Stig Agermose [17]
   DA Investigating Mysterious Cow Deaths In New - Stig Agermose [89]
   Re: OZ: Search Fails To Find Clues To UFO - Stig Agermose [19]
   Australia Searches For ET - Stig Agermose [64]
   Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon - Wendy Christensen [6]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [99]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Jerome Clark [44]
   W.W.W Australia Now On Web - Diane Harrison [18]
   Re: What Have We Really Learned - Rob Irving [7]
   New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell Story - Kal K. Korff [315]
   BUFORA WATCH: BUFORA Sacks Editor for Silence - Mike Wootten [195]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Joel Carpenter
   [11]
   Greer Joins The Prophets Conference Visiting - prophets@maui.net [73]
   Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell - Kevin Randle [48]
   Re: What Have We Really Learned? - Jenny Randles [147]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Bruce Maccabee
   [37]
   Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon - Henny van der Pluijm
   [11]
   Max Burns BUFORA Lecture - Roy Hale [6]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Bruce Maccabee
   [105]
   Re: What Have We Really Learned? - Jim Mortellaro [14]
   Spat With Talk Show Host - $60 Million Lawsuit - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [164]

  Jun 11:

   Re: What Have We Really Learned? - Alan Loper [27]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [48]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [68]
   Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture - Mike Wootten [4]
   SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets - Stig Agermose
   [101]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's Sighting [was: Re: Voyager - James Easton [214]
   Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture - Mike Wootten [4]
   Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell - Tom Carey [20]
   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Jim Deardorff [98]
   Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon - Josh Goldstein [65]
   Earth Changes TV/Breaking News - Did NASA Erase - Mitch Battros [30]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [64]
   DISPATCH # 110 -- the weekly newsletter of - ParaScope@AOL.COM [167]
   The Max Burns BUFORA Lecture - A Review - David Clarke [288]
   Filer's Files #23 1999 - George A. Filer [398]

  Jun 12:

   Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture - Joe Murgia [7]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Jerome Clark [55]
   Re: High Flying Pelicans - Bruce Maccabee [6]

  Jun 10:

   Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake - Tony Spurrier [25]
   Re: UK UFO Weekend - Tony Spurrier [20]
   MAGONIA Monthly Supplement No. 16 June 1999 - Mark Pilkington [316]

  Jun 12:

   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Bruce Maccabee
   [19]

  Jun 13:

   Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same - Don Allen [6]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting - Jerome Clark [31]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold - David Rudiak [278]
   MUFON '99 International Symposium - Sue Kovios [168]
   Re: Greer Joins The Prophets Conference Visiting - Josh Goldstein [2]
   'Angel Hair' Again Falls From The Sky In OZ - Diane Harrison [28]
   Return of Orange UFOs To OZ East Coast - Diane Harrison [40]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [20]
   New CD-ROM Publication From CUFOS - Steven W. Kaeser [23]
   Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Jenny Randles [85]
   Van Den Broeck's Paper On 'Warp' Drive - Stig Agermose [31]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Tim Matthews [57]
   European Journal of UFO and Abduction Studies - John Hayes [29]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [10]
   Re: Beyond the Blunderdome - Mendoza [128]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Dennis Stacy [47]
   Larry Hatch Is Back - Larry Hatch [6]
   Re: Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much - Larry Hatch [14]
   Seti@home 'Failure'? - John Tenney [44]
   Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99 - Larry Hatch [14]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Larry Hatch [14]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Larry Hatch [50]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's Sighting [was: Re: Voyager - David Rudiak [170]
   Fwd: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90 - Philip Mantle - QUEST [73]
   BWW Media Alert 19990613 - Bufo Calvin [212]
   Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same - Donnie Shevlin [28]
   Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Crosses Atlantic - David Clarke [50]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Jim Mortellaro [55]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - John Heptonstall [66]
   'Strange Days...Indeed' - Tonight: Dennis Stacy - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [20]
   Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture - Roy Hale [5]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting - Dennis Stacy [58]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Rose Hargrove [41]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold - Dennis Stacy [39]
   Re: Fwd: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90 - Henny van der Pluijm [13]

  Jun 14:

   Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, 7 July 1989? - Roy Hale [12]
   24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary? - Roy Hale [12]
   Humanoid Allegedly Found In Mason, MI, In Spring - Stig Agermose [44]

  Jun 15:

   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Nathan Ranger [55]
   Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same - Christine Fernandes
   [4]
   Housekeeping - UFO UpDates - Toronto [13]
   FYI: Possible UFO Mis-Reports - Leanne Martin [9]
   Re: Seti@home 'Failure'? - Michel M. Deschamps [12]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Dennis Stacy [17]
   UFO, Paranormal, New Age Etc. Address List? - Philip Mantle - QUEST
   [14]
   Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same - Jacques Poulet [18]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Jsmortell@aol.com
   [16]
   Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture - Mike Wootten [6]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Jenny Randles [107]
   Re: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90 - Nick Balaskas [32]
   Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena, - Alexander Beletsky [107]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - John Rimmer [34]

  Jun 16:

   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Bruce Maccabee
   [12]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold - Bruce Maccabee [52]
   Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99 - Bruce Maccabee [3]
   Re: Humanoid Allegedly Found In Mason, MI, In - Jeff Westover [3]
   Re: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - James Easton [115]
   The Millennium Project News - June 14, 1999 - Paul Anderson -
   TMP/CPR-Canada [98]
   Possibilities - Judith Dale [26]
   Re: Survey: 'UFO Technology' Among Top - Stig Agermose [152]
   Re: Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, 7 July - Larry Hatch [12]
   Re: 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary? - Larry Hatch [18]
   Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture - David Clarke [58]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Jenny Randles [24]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting - Jerome Clark [65]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Martin Phillips [16]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Jerome Clark [6]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Larry Hatch [12]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - John Velez [49]
   Re: Beyond the Blunderdome - Jerome Clark [11]
   'UFO Research: Cincinnati' Site Revision/update - Kenny Young [11]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Mark Cashman [13]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedma - Mark Cashman [33]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Jim Mortellaro [10]
   RUFOs, JFK, and Richard Belzer - Stig Agermose [125]
   U.S. Military Designation System [AN\---] - Stig Agermose [105]
   The Stonedisks of Baian-Kara-Ula - Stig Agermose [38]
   Re: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90 - Henny van der Pluijm [10]
   US Feds: No Implant In 'Mobster's' Butt - Stig Agermose [44]
   Re: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting - Mark Cashman [31]
   John Mack, M.D. Joins The Prophets Conference - prophets@maui.net [46]
   Physics Of UFO Data - Stig Agermose [23]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - Josh Goldstein [21]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Perry Mick [8]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - Donald Ledger [52]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [87]
   Re: Possibilities - Stephen Bassett [37]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Jim Mortellaro [19]
   Re: Irwin Weider Query - Andy Roberts [6]
   Re: Budd Hopkins [was: Mad Maxad Max: Beyond the - Jerome Clark [19]
   Re: US Feds: No Implant In 'Mobster's' Butt - Jsmortell@aol.com [22]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Jim Mortellaro [3]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting - Dennis Stacy [18]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Dennis Stacy [66]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Dennis Stacy [40]

  Jun 17:

   Re: Budd Hopkins - Jerome Clark [4]
   UFOs Around The World...A Lot Of Them - Thiago Ticchetti [48]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Bruce Maccabee [4]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - Bruce Maccabee [215]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - Bruce Maccabee [3]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - John Velez [64]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Jenny Randles [109]

  Jun 18:

   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Mark Cashman [40]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting - Mark Cashman [58]
   Re: Moving Home - Sean Jones [11]
   Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency' - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [227]
   Timothy Cooper's MJ-12 REPORT - Stig Agermose [451]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Jenny Randles [46]
   Re: Beyond the Blunderdome - Peter Brookesmith-Mendoza [45]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Dennis Stacy [35]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Judith Jaafar [105]
   Firmage Returns To Lead New USWeb/CKS Venture - Stig Agermose [45]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Dennis Stacy [26]
   Einstein'S Brain Found To Be Anatomically Distinct - Stig Agermose [83]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - Donald . Ledger [16]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Jerome Clark [51]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Kevin Randle [7]
   Ray Gun Freezes Victims Without Causing Injury - Stig Agermose [97]
   Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie - Jerome Clark [21]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Greg Sandow [11]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - David Rudiak [172]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - John Heptonstall [31]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Lynda Matthews [36]
   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Andy Roberts [146]

  Jun 19:

   Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - Jim Mortellaro [10]
   'The Roots Of Complacency' - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [227]
   Filer's Files #24 --1999 - George A. Filer [407]
   Cashman & IUR - Bill Weber [21]
   Re: 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary? - Nick Balaskas [30]
   Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell - Bob Young [6]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - David Rudiak [41]
   Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie - Greg Sandow [18]
   NASA Demonstrates A More Open Forum - Mitch Battros [69]
   Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie - Jenny Randles [26]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Jenny Randles [97]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Stan Friedman [7]
   Blather: On The Ghost Bus - Daev Walsh - Blather [358]
   UFO Over Pakistan - Stig Agermose [16]
   Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie - Thiago Ticchetti [15]
   Gigantic 'Heart' formation on Mars - Stig Agermose [43]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Dennis Stacy [9]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Dennis Stacy [8]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Roger Evans [27]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes - Bruce Maccabee [6]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - Michel M. Deschamps [18]
   Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie - Jean-Luc Rivera [16]
   Re: Cashman & IUR - Larry Hatch [36]
   British Columbia UFO Radio Show - UFO*BC [25]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Kevin Randle [15]
   Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell - KRandle993@aol.com
   [117]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Kevin Randle [14]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Larry Hatch [37]
   Re: Gigantic 'Heart' formation on Mars - Jim Mortellaro [10]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Jenny Randles [13]
   J. Allen Hynek Quote - Francisco Lopez [162]

  Jun 20:

   Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Confusion - Jenny Randles [143]
   Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency' - Jim Mortellaro [76]
   Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie - Peter Brookesmith - Mendoza [112]
   Night Sky Mystery - Is It A Bird, Is It A Plane..? - Diane Harrison
   [43]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Greg Sandow [7]
   Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency' - Bruce Maccabee [3]
   Re: Cashman & IUR - Tim D. Brigham [20]
   Satanic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins] - Josh Goldstein [23]
   BWW Media Alert 19990620 - BufoCalvin@aol.com [201]
   Time Travel - Jenny Randles [19]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Bluehare Dark Peak [538]
   RIPT & MJ-12 - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [34]
   'Strange Days...Indeed' - Tonight: Stanton T. - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [20]

  Jun 21:

   Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency' - Brian Cuthbertson [25]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Dennis Stacy [35]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Brian Cuthbertson [10]
   Re: Hypnotic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins] - Tim Matthews [10]
   Re: Satanic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins] - John Rimmer [13]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Roy Hale [40]
   Re: Time Travel [Caution: 'umour] - From: Jim Mortellaro [28]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Roger Evans [38]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Jenny Randles [33]
   'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Phillip S. Duke [45]
   Re: Budd Hopkins - Jerome Clark [8]
   Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie - Jerome Clark" [27]
   Re: RIPT & MJ-12 - Kevin Randle [26]
   Re: Hypnotic Abuse - Steven Kaeser [18]

  Jun 22:

   Re: Satanic Abuse - Greg Sandow [9]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Andy Roberts [64]
   Big Grey Man of Ben McDhui - Allen Loper [8]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - "Matthew Williams" [108]
   Kind Words - Kevin Randle [6]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Peter Brookesmith Mendoza [22]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Kathleen Andersen [22]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Thiago Ticchetti [8]
   GOES and METEOSAT pictures of UFOS? - Luis Eduardo Pacheco [15]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - GT McCoy [30]
   Re: Hypnotic Abuse - Roy Hale [7]
   Re: RIPT & MJ-12 - Neil Morris [82]
   Re: Hypnotic Abuse - Kevin Randle [27]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Kevin Randle [16]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - David Clarke [16]
   Truth In Numbers - Bob Kathman [12]
   S4 Database - New Address - Olav Phillips [19]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Royce J.Myers III [16]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Judith Dale [43]
   Aurora 1897 - Again - Richard D. Nolane [18]

  Jun 23:

   Re: New Images Placed On RPIT Site - "The Bird" - Asgeir W. Skavhaug
   [33]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Jenny Randles [26]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Teri Edgar [15]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Larry Hatch [8]
   Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie - Peter Brookesmith Mendoza [32]
   Re: Hypnotic Abuse - Jerome Clark [38]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - James Easton [28]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Phillip S Duke [100]
   Re: RIPT & MJ-12 - Roger Evans [29]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Greg Sandow [22]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Greg Sandow [36]
   Re: Hypnotic Abuse - John Velez [63]
   Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952 - Stig Agermose [28]
   Re: Hypnotic Abuse - Tim Matthews [0]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Roy Hale [7]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Peter Brookesmith Mendoza [152]
   On Firmage's UFO Theories - Stig Agermose [87]

  Jun 24:

   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Jenny Randles [26]
   Re: Hypnotic Abuse - Jenny Randles [111]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - KAnder6444@aol.com [12]
   Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie - Jerome Clark [45]
   Re: Hypnotic Abuse - UFO UpDates - Toronto [10]
   Paradigm Research Group Update - 6/22/99 - Stephen G. Bassett [379]
   Firmage's ISSO Update - Joe Firmage Automessenger <> [56]
   Cattle Mutilation in Chino Valley, Arizona - Desiree Holloway [21]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Henny van der Pluijm [10]
   Alien Life May Be Hard To Find - Stig Agermose [58]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Henny van der Pluijm [12]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - judithdale [47]
   Re: New Images Placed On RPIT Site - "The Bird" - Neil Morris [29]
   Re: RIPT & MJ-12 - Neil Morris [120]
   Re: Hypnotic Abuse - Tim D. Brigham [28]
   P-47: Astronaut Cooper and UFOs - Loy Pressley [24]
   Re: Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952 - Donald Ledger [9]
   Re: Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952 - Jim Ball [19]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Tim D. Brigham [48]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Greg Sandow [14]
   Re: RIPT & MJ-12 - David Rudiak [67]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Bruce Maccabee [2]
   Re: Crisis..... What Crisis - Jerry Anderson [43]

  Jun 25:

   Re: Crisis..... What Crisis? - Jim Mortellaro [62]
   Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection' - Sharon Kardol [42]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Mark Cashman [10]
   Re: Crisis..... What Crisis? - Michel M. Deschamps [9]
   Re: Otherworld Reality Conference - Review PT. 2 - Stephen Miles Lewis
   - ELFIS [616]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Mike Wootten [16]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Mike Wootten [16]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Mike Wootten [16]

  Jun 26:

   Filer's Files #25 - 99 - George A. Filer [408]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Roger Evans [48]
   Month-Long Sightings In Iran? - Stig Agermose [11]
   Doug & Dave? - John Gilbert [7]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - John Gilbert [7]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Teri Edgar [18]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - John Rimmer [12]

  Jun 27:

   UFO Sighting & Mag Detector Activity? - Stan Gordon [102]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Kevin Randle [13]
   Re: Month-Long Sightings In Iran? - Larry Hatch [5]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Larry Hatch [12]
   UFO Shows on TLC Tonight - Dave Pengilly - UFO*BC [10]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - KAnder6444@aol.com [35]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - neil morris [16]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - dave bowden [19]
   New Project 1947 Web Site - UFO UpDates - Toronto [9]
   Joseph Trainor and UFO ROUNDUP - Mystery Solved! - John Hayes [81]
   Re: Theorist Predicts Life in Universe is Common - Stig Agermose [56]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Greg Sandow [18]
   Re: WBAI RADIO - Paul Williams [23]
   Re: BWW Media Alert 19990627 - BufoCalvin@aol.com [268]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - John Rimmer [7]
   Re: Filer's Files #25 - 99 - Phillip S Duke [52]

  Jun 28:

   Re: Doug & Dave? - Greg Sandow [7]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - John Hayes [15]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Larry Hatch [6]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Larry Hatch [13]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Sean Jones [17]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - John Rimmer [6]

  Jun 29:

   Re: Satanic Abuse - Tim D. Brigham [16]
   BBC: 'Fying Saucer' Grounded - Steven J. Dunn [24]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Bruce Maccabee [4]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Jerome Clark [8]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Neil Morris [30]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Greg Sandow [14]
   Re: New Project 1947 Web Site - Jim Mortellaro [35]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - dave bowden [11]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Matthew Williams [89]
   Re: Doug & Dave? [Caution: 'umour] - Jim Mortellaro [13]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Jilain [11]
   Western Australia To Help In Alien Search - Stig Agermose [23]
   Mars Lander And Possibly Life Sites Eyed - Stig Agermose [50]
   The Millennium Project News - June 28, 1999 - Paul Anderson - TMP /
   CPR-Canada [81]
   PRG - Program Announcement - Stephen G. Bassett [13]
   Satanic Abuse - Bob Young [6]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Bob Young [10]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Neil Morris [24]

  Jun 30:

   Re: Doug & Dave? - Jerome Clark [8]
   Re: Doug & Dave? [Caution: 'umour] - John Rimmer [4]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Henny van der Pluijm [13]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Sean Jones [6]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Leanne Martin [6]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Greg Sandow [2]
   British Aerospace Sponsors Research Into - Stig Agermose [84]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Ron Decker [19]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Tim D. Brigham [19]

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





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                Re: Roger Sandell Memorial Essay Competition

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 11:33:29 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:16:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Roger Sandell Memorial Essay Competition


>Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 14:22:47 +0100
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Roger Sandell Memorial Essay Competition

>In memory of the life and work of Roger Sandell, who died in
>January 1996, Magonia has instituted a regular essay competition
>with a prize of GBP 100 (USD 160) for an essay in a field
>related to Roger's interests.

>Enties are now invited for the second competition, which has the
>broad theme of:

>The Media, Vision and Belief.

>This can be interpreted in the widest sense, and could include
>media coverage of specific phenomena or beliefs; how the media
>shapes contemporary beliefs; how the media contributes to public
>understanding (or misunderstanding) of anomalous events or
>beliefs; or any other aspect of media interaction with the
>topics covered in Magonia magazine. This list is not intended to
>be comprehensive, and potential entrants are invited to contact
>the editor of Magonia to discuss if a proposed topic would be
>suitable.

>Entry is open to all, except those listed as editors of Magonia
>in the current issue.

>Each entry must be the original and unpublished work of the
>entrant, and must not be submitted elsewhere for award or
>publication before 31st October 1999.

>Entries must be between 4000 and 5000 words, not including notes
>and references, but lengthy footnotes should be avoided. Entries
>must be typed, double spaced, on one side of A4 paper, with a
>separate sheet giving the title and the entrant's name and
>address.

>Entries must be posted to John Rimmer, John Dee Cottage, 5 James
>Terrace, London SW14 8HB, UK, in time to be received by 31st
>September 1999. Entries sent on disc, by fax or e-mail are not
>acceptable.

>Entries will be judged by John Rimmer, John Harney and Peter
>Rogerson, and the winner will receive a prize of 100 pounds
>($160). No correspondence will be entered into. The judges
>reserve the right to withold the prize if they consider that no
>entry reaches a sufficiently high standard.

>The winning entry will be published in Magonia. The editors may
>wish to publish other entries by agreement with the authors.


Dear John:

I hope you do not get TOO many entries.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                Re: An Open Letter To A Friend, Jeff Rense...

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:00:13 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:17:24 -0400
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To A Friend, Jeff Rense...


>Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 10:03:59 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: An Open Letter To A Friend, Jeff Rense... Journalist

>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 12:20:10 EDT
>>Subject: Re: An Open Letter To A Friend, Jeff Rense... Journalist
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>I am reduced to a quivering mass of inert protoplasm. My
>>reputations as Cheeser, Vintner, UFO publisher and inebriant are
>>finished.  My fresh wines are not selling well.  People think I
>>have come out of my security closet, the one I hide in and pass
>>notes to my employees ... whenever the rest of the world goes
>>mad.  The one in which my non compos mentis ravings are well
>>met.  That place I go in order to receive messages from the tin
>>foil hat I wear in there.

>>I promise to answer all the private mail I've received, just
>>give me some time... and please, stop sending the original to
>>your friends... It's ruining my reputation as a ditsy dirt-bag.


>>Jim

>Dear Monsignor Mortadella, provider of salami, bologna and fresh
>vintage wines:

>Please stoppa disturbando mia Burpa.

>You'a knocka dem suds off.

>With the very best regards

>- Larry
>
>PS:
>
>Further findings!

>http://www.jps.net/larryhat/48yrs.html

>If that doesn't work,  navigate thru the Statistics Menu.

>Otherwise, try Larry Hatches Burpa! It ain't exactly Grippa,
>but it don't dye a guys stools Purpa.

>[sorry]

Never be sorry for Purple Stools... but you need to know
something about Morte.... as in "Morte-llaro" and "Marte-della!"

Oh my gawd!  Everybody is gonna be sorry you said that....
Except me.  I am now going into the Italian Deli meat
business... say, what's an old sudzer like you with a name like
Hatch know about Mortadella? Woof... will wonders never cease.
I am driven to bedlam!

And now for the rest of the story (with special thanks to Paul
Harvey).  Mortellaro... mortadella... "Morte" meaning death, is
a part of both words.  Mortadella is an Italian cold cut made
(in original form) from blood.  It's a little like German
Bludvurst. It's got fat, blood, peppercorns, garlic and the
"death or morte" part comes from the blood.  Without blood....
you is dead!

Anyway, about 28 years ago, my wife who is an artist, had a bad
case of contact dermititis from some of the chemicals she was
using.  So off we went to the Grand Concourse (in the Bronx) to
a dermatologist... this man is very Jewish... conservative. We
get thru with the exam when he tells us how much he loves
Italian culture.  He turns out to be a student of Italian
culture.

He whips it out... ( Sorry, Cleavon Little is dead too) anyway,
he whips out a huge, leather bound volume of names, all Italian.
He aks (this is the Bronx, remember?) us if we know what
Mortellaro means...? We say no, but it must have something to do
with death, as that is the first word in the name.

He looks it up and says, "Mortellaro is a bastardization of a
word (which escapes me right now) which means "lives forever or
Lack of death." It is the name of an evergreen tree indigeonous
to the island if Sicily. And aks us for $50 and sends us on our
way.  So, just call me "Tree" or "everygreen".  But ya dasn't
hafta call me 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 23:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:18:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 16:01:49 -0400
>From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>The handful of reports which relate to first hand witnesses
>seeing formations appear before their eyes are sketchy to
>say the least. Following are some eyewitness reports:

>Arthur Shuttlewood - 1970's, a fan opening spiral in grass
>on Starr Hill in Bishopstrow parish, Wiltshire

>Melvyn Bell - 1983 in wheat, on the slopes of Great Cheverell
>Hill, Wiltshire

>Ray Barnes - 3rd July 1982, a fan opening spiral in a cereal
>crop on the slopes of Westbury Hill

>Sandy Reid - late August 1989, near Duntoon Hill, north of
>Dundee

>These are the eyewitness accounts in 'The Crop Circle
>Enigma',

Thanks for listing them, Tony. I suppose if there were as many
as 500 such reports, they would still be dismissed as anecdotal,
for the same reason that several hundred thousand screened UFO
reports are treated the same way by negative skeptics. But it
would be interesting to interview these four persons and form
one's own opinion as to their sincerity and character. But at
least Terence Meaden thought these witnesses' reports were worth
noting, which is more than most anti-UFO advocates would do.

>what surprises me is the lack of detail regarding
>the 'sightings' plus the lack of supporting evidence that
>the formations allegedly seen created were anything more
>than wind damage.

Anyone who has seen crop blow-down due to wind knows that that
doesn't leave a formation with the distinct geometry of a
crop-circle formation or with regular, crisp edges.

>For some reason it appears that dowsing
>rods are to be taken more seriously than these eyewitnesses,
>why?

If I heard someone make that suggestion, I wouldn't take them
seriously.

>Why do formations in oil-seed rape offer more proof to
>a non-terrestrial origin for crop circles?

For the same reason that hoaxed crop circles in oil-seed rape
are extremely rare. That thick-stemmed crop consists of quite
bushy plants that are rather unmanageable when you get in there
with your boards and all. I suppose someone has tried to make a
crop circle in it, but if so, they must have left quite a mess
of broken and irregularly tangled stems.

>If the subject of crop circles was or is to
>be taken seriously why weren't the latest revelations
>highlighted back in the late 70's, early 80's? Especially as
>there were less formations created back then, is it that todays
>formation are genuine and those weren't, or is there another
>explanation?

Do you mean, Why did the formations evolve from circles and
formations of circles to much more complex patterns? That could
be due to the "I" in ETI. If the aliens have enough intelligence
not to have forced themselves upon us after some 52 years of a
campaign of a stepped-up sightings rate, and to allow the
coverup to continue until we can expose it ourselves, their
strategy could be similar relative to crop circles -- to give
the skeptics the option of not being forced to believe in the
reality of what they would prefer to ignore. Of course, it
didn't help Terence Meaden, who has to assume that descending
vortices from on high have given way to all hoaxes.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                 The Millennium Project News - May 31, 1999

From: Paul Anderson - TMP / CPR-Canada <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 13:52:48 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:17:58 -0400
Subject: The Millennium Project News - May 31, 1999


The Millennium Project News
News and Updates from The Millennium Project

May 31, 1999

_____________________________


WEEKLY BRIEFING:


More updates on the mystery contrails (or "chemtrails"),
with new reports from myself and others here in Vancouver,
BC and the US. Many very large contrails, including bold "Xs"
and "cross-hatch patterns" and other "geometric" shapes
were seen over Vancouver and in surrounding municipalities
on May 26, as well as other days in the past couple weeks,
with the 21st and 26th being the "heaviest" days of activity
(so far). Some photos have been added to the web site, along
with the reports. More will added as soon as they can be
scanned. When we first started seeing the unusual contrail
patterns here in mid-April (similar to reports from all
across the US and Canada), they were all parallel, but an
unusually high number of them, and very large. Now, we
have started seeing the (increasingly blatant) characteristic
Xs and cross-hatch patterns here, just in the last couple
weeks or so. Also, in cooperation with William Thomas (who
resides on Vancouver Island here in Canada), we are now
looking for a private pilot who may be able to assist in
close-up photography /video of some of these bizarre
contrails and the aircraft involved, as well as gathering of
air samples for analysis. If you are a pilot or know of any
pilots in the western Canada or US areas who may be able to
help, please notify myself or William Thomas immediately.
And to all who read this - for heaven's sake *look up* and see
what may be happening in your skies... (as if increasing
waves of UFO sightings weren't enough). More background
info on this phenomenon is on the web site.

Also, the latest crop circle reports from England and Germany
as the season kicks into high gear, plus the latest UFO, space
and science news, the next Fields of Dreams crop circle lecture
for The Millennium Forum and new web site links.

Wishing a good week to all of you.

Paul Anderson
Director
The Millennium Project

_____________________________


See the TMP web site for links to the following news stories
and updates, an archive of previous news and information on
other TMP resources:

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa


NEWS AND REPORTS

* Latest Crop Circle Updates from England and Germany
* "Airport for UFOs" Looks For Signals From Hidden
   Universe
* Filer's Files #21 - May 28, 1999
* Australia Confirms Existence of UKUSA, Echelon
* New "Suncruiser" Images from I Wonder Productions
* Popular Science: NASA Interstellar Propulsion Schemes
* "Dark Energy"
* Scientists: Cloned Sheep Dolly has "Old" DNA


SPECIAL RESEARCH PROJECTS

* Mystery Contrails: New Reports and Photos from BC,
   Washington, Ohio, Michigan and North Dakota


THE MILLENNIUM FORUM

* Next Fields of Dreams Crop Circle Presentation
   June 21 in Vancouver, BC


RELATED WEB SITE LINKS

* Link for New Earth Files web site by Linda Moulton
   Howe

_____________________________


The Millennium Project News is the e-mail update service of
The Millennium Project, an independent research organization
initiated in January 1999 as an alternative source of news
and information to the maintream media. TMP was founded
by future studies researcher Paul Anderson, also director of
Circles Phenomenon Research Canada.

TMP News is published weekly or as breaking news develops,
with the latest news and reports, information on TMP events and
web site updates and is available free by subscription; to be
added to or removed from the mailing list, send your request,
including either "subscribe TMP News" or "unsubscribe TMP
News" and e-mail address to:  psa@direct.ca

TMP welcomes your news leads and submissions.
Forward all correspondence to:

E-Mail:
psa@direct.ca

Tel / Fax:
604.731.8522

Mail:
Suite 202 - 2086 West 2nd Avenue
Vancouver, BC
V6J 1J4
Canada

=A9 The Millennium Project, 1999






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

              Appeal From CUFORG [Cornwall UFO Research Group]

From: Ian Darlington <cuforg@interweb-design.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:30:34 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:19:09 -0400
Subject: Appeal From CUFORG [Cornwall UFO Research Group]


Dear All,

I am writing to ask if anyone has an article, research report or
similar piece of work that they would be willing to allow me to
publish in our small circulation printed newsletter
'Skywatchers'.

The newsletter starts life as a 36 page photocopied edition with
a print run of about 80 copies. We then provide an email edition
to researchers and members of the public who subscribe.
Eventually, some of the articles are published on our Web site.

Each article will naturally be credited & linked (where
applicable) to the author - please let me know where you are
willing to have your work published: printed edn., email, Web
site or all three.

Please email any articles or enquiries to:
mailto:cuforg@interweb-design.co.uk

Many thanks in advance,

Ian Darlington.
Editor/Webmaster 'Skywatchers'.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                 Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

From: Karl Pflock <Ktperehwon@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:50:01 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:19:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999


Dennis & Fellow List Fiends--

>In Friedman's defense, abductions have never been a part of his
>portfolio.

You, Harney et al. seem to forget Stan was a not insignificant
player in the Barney and Betty Hill case, albeit with respect to
an almost nutsy-boltsy matter:  the star map and Marjorie Fish's
work re same.  This certainly doesn't make him an abductologist,
but it suggests why he might be a good choice as an abduction
conference presenter.

I don't know what Stan spoke of at the conference, but if he
addressed the star map and its implications, then he just may
have contributed in some small degree to bringing abductology
back down to earth, so to speak, and to re-linking the subject
in some substantial way to ufology.

-- Cheers, 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                 Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:48:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:20:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999


>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 19:28:55 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

>Greg,

>Not to choose sides in an already complicated issue,  but I
>think Harney's point was this (or something similar):A one day
>symposium on the abduction phenomenon is being held; So why is
>Friedman, an historically nuts and bolts man, invited to speak
>at same, say, in lieu of someone else, such as Kevin Randle?
>Remember that discussion?

>A quick glance at the index of my copy of Alien Discussions, for
>example, reveals not a single entry under Friedman, Stan or
>Stanton. Friedman has _never_ been regarded as an abduction man
>(pardon the phrase), so the curious among us simply want to know
>why he is now presumed to have any meaningful input on the
>matter?

Stan was invited to speak about one very specific issue -- can
alien beings travel to earth from other solar systems? This is
something he's well qualified to discuss, because of his
background in nuclear engineering, and especially because of his
work on the attempted development of nuclear rockets. This was a
part of his history I hadn't been aware of, and I was intrigued
by his thoughts on how scientists, when they declare that
something is impossible, may not have considered engineering
approaches to the problems they think can't be solved.

Since Stan was speaking at the conference, it seemed reasonable
to ask him what he thinks about abductions, and, as moderator, I
did that during the final discussion panel. As I said here
earlier, I'd already asked him to write a position statement for
the conference press kit. Speaking only for myself, I found it
interesting to have a participant who hadn't been closely
identified with the subject, as something of a wild card in the
mix. Any more than this should come from Stan himself, which is
not to say that there are any great secrets here. It's just that
I don't have any business speaking for him. (I should note that
speakers had their expenses reimbursed, but weren't paid any
fee.)


>Harney is perfectly right and free as an editorial commentator
>to speak his mind, concluding with the plea: "Could someone sort
>it out for me?" Does Greg seriously believe that NY Times
>editorial writers are obligated to do original reporting
>themselves (ie, man the phones) when commenting upon already
>extant news items? Of course not.

Of course they aren't. But the Times will already have printed
news stories on the issues discussed in editorials, and there
presumably won't be gaping holes in the coverage. If the Times
wants to campaign, let's say, against Clinton's policy toward
Yugoslavia, they'll have asked him any relevant questions in the
course of their news reporting.

The Magonia editorial appeared on its own, without any context
of news about the conference. So Harney's plea for information
-- about something he could easily have found out for himself --
made his newsletter seem like a rather hapless amateur
operation, at least to me.

If you want comparisons, Dennis, I'll offer two, which at least
to me make more sense than a comparison to a NY Times editorial.

Comparison 1: If I write one of my music reviews for the Wall
Street Journal, I'll never let any major question sit
unanswered. I can't just sit back and write, "Will someone tell
me why Gerard Schwarz is still music director of the Mostly
Mozart festival?" I have to call the festival (or other sources
in the business) in an attempt to find out.

Comparison 2: You'd left the MUFON Journal, Dennis, when I
published my review there of David Jacobs's book "The Threat."
But I had a question for Dave when I wrote the book -- "How many
abductees reported the things the book talked about?" So I
called him to ask, and spent much of the review discussing his
answers.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                 Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:28:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:21:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999


>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 10:00:42 +0100
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

>Editor: JOHN HARNEY

>EDITORIAL

>Let us take multi-witness cases first. There are, so far
>as I am aware, no cases with multiple, independent witnesses
>which cannot be explained with reference to sightings of
>aircraft or natural phenomena. Those cases which appear to
>satisfy these criteria do not stand up to critical examination.


There must be short memories at Magonia -

1) Lubbock, TX 1951 (Photos also)
2) Paul Hill, Hampton, VA, 1952
3) Vins, France, 1957
4) Levelland, TX 1957
5) Sherman TX, 1965 (Photos, also)

There are, of course, more. And there are many where multiple
witnesses are in the same location but otherwise have no
association.

It's not as if the above are obscure incidents, either.

------
Mark Cashman (TeamB - C++ Builder), creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and more -
C++ Builder / JBuilder Tips and The C++ Builder Programmer's Webring (Join us!)
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/programming/index.htm
------






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                 Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:53:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:24:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

>From: Karl Pflock <Ktperehwon@aol.com>
>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:50:01 EDT
>Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>Dennis & Fellow List Fiends--

>>In Friedman's defense, abductions have never been a part of his
>>portfolio.

>You, Harney et al. seem to forget Stan was a not insignificant
>player in the Barney and Betty Hill case, albeit with respect to
>an almost nutsy-boltsy matter:  the star map and Marjorie Fish's
>work re same.  This certainly doesn't make him an abductologist,
>but it suggests why he might be a good choice as an abduction
>conference presenter.

>I don't know what Stan spoke of at the conference, but if he
>addressed the star map and its implications, then he just may
>have contributed in some small degree to bringing abductology
>back down to earth, so to speak, and to re-linking the subject
>in some substantial way to ufology.

>-- Cheers, KARL

Hello Karl, hi All,

Stan did spend time talking about the star map and Marjorie
Fish's work. Both he and Jerry Clark made contributions which
'grounded' the proceedings in good old fashioned 3D reality.
Budd and Dave Jacobs made equal contributions on that score.

Stan & Jerry were there to to bring their unique 'nuts & bolts'
approach to the proceedings which they both did admirably and
with much aplomb. And, contrary to popular belief, so did Budd
and David Jacobs. There are so many false and unjustified
accusations thrown at Budd and David that I just thought I'd
mention the fact that they both happen to be two of the more
'grounded' people investigating this subject.

The lineupl that was selected for the conference was
deliberate and well thought out. It was one of the more
"intelligent/thoughtful" conferences I have ever attended. No
'crystals and ballyhoo', just straight information that the
attendees could use to formulate their own oppinions.

Peace,

John Velez, Webmaster IF-AIC

________________________________________________
                                jvif@spacelab.net
INTRUDERS FOUNDATION/ABDUCTION INFORMATION CENTER
                            http://www.if-aic.com/
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
________________________________________________





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                 Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:32:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:24:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999
>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:48:56 -0400

<snip>

>If you want comparisons, Dennis, I'll offer two, which at least
>to me make more sense than a comparison to a NY Times editorial.

>Comparison 1: If I write one of my music reviews for the Wall
>Street Journal, I'll never let any major question sit
>unanswered. I can't just sit back and write, "Will someone tell
>me why Gerard Schwarz is still music director of the Mostly
>Mozart festival?" I have to call the festival (or other sources
>in the business) in an attempt to find out.

>Comparison 2: You'd left the MUFON Journal, Dennis, when I
>published my review there of David Jacobs's book "The Threat."
>But I had a question for Dave when I wrote the book -- "How many
>abductees reported the things the book talked about?" So I
>called him to ask, and spent much of the review discussing his
>answers.

>Greg Sandow

Greg,

As I said, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I accept that your comments and
reasoning are imminently rational, just as I accept that Harney might have
rational reasons for his comments, too, if he cares to make them public.

But since you brought up the book review example, let me comment. Surely it
is not standard practice for a book reviewer to call up an author for
further clarification of a particular point?

Admittedly, there's no law that says you can't or shouldn't, but neither is
there any obligation to do so under the circumstances. The book review is
your opinion and you stand or fall on it. If I wonder aloud, "What the hell
_was_ Tom Wolfe thinking when he ended his latest novel the way he did?"
should I give him a quick call to find out?

Similarly, the organizers of a conference are perfectly free to invite
anyone they want, just as Friedman is perfectly free to show up and speak at
same. That's not at dispute, either. No one is obligated to invite a skunk
to their garden party if they aren't so inclined.

If I were going to hold a one-day seminar devoted to the abduction problem,
however, I can think of a long list of names that would precede Friedman's.
But that would depend on whether the organizers were interested in educating
the public as to all the pros and cons of the subject under discussion,
bolstering their own case, preaching to the choir, keeping expenses to a
minimum...any number of factors.

It would behoove us all -- without increasing our cynicism or pessimism
quotients -- to remember that life is a series of compromises. Sometimes you
pick up the phone, and sometimes you don't. And just because you get a quote
doesn't necessarily mean you got the answer.

"Slobodan, Dennis here. _Why_ are you terrorizing all those ethnic Albanians
in Kosovar, anyway?"

I guess what I'm saying is this: news journalism requires that you pick up
the phone. Editorial commentary, reviews, and opinion pieces don't, unless
one is so inclined.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:03:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:25:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 23:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

>Thanks for listing them, Tony. I suppose if there were as many
>as 500 such reports, they would still be dismissed as anecdotal,
>for the same reason that several hundred thousand screened UFO
>reports are treated the same way by negative skeptics. But it
>would be interesting to interview these four persons and form
>one's own opinion as to their sincerity and character.

Do you have the full details of what these eyewitnesses actually
claim to have seen? If so, I'd like to view their accounts and
details of the alleged formations that were created.

>But at least Terence Meaden thought these witnesses' reports were
>worth noting, which is more than most anti-UFO advocates would do.

I have noted it also but a few names, dates and vague areas
doesn't constitute worthwhile testimony. Where are the full
accounts of what these people saw?

>For the same reason that hoaxed crop circles in oil-seed rape
>are extremely rare. That thick-stemmed crop consists of quite
>bushy plants that are rather unmanageable when you get in there
>with your boards and all. I suppose someone has tried to make a
>crop circle in it, but if so, they must have left quite a mess
>of broken and irregularly tangled stems.

Firstly, you seem to be implying here that I have a set of
boards, just because I believe that circles are man made doesn't
make me a circle maker. You believe some formations are UFO
created, that doesn't make you an alien <g>

Secondly, have you actually tried to create a circle in oil-seed
to test your theory? From what I've learned, crop is cushoned by
other crop when flattening, which shelters an extremely large
percentage of stems from being broken. Some apparently are
broken, but barring checking every single stem a cerealogist
wouldn't obviously see them. You mentioned 'Circular Evidence'
before, Colin Andrews explained how crop can not be flattened
using string across the radius as the pressure is too great, so
we have evidence that what the circle makers say is likely to be
correct.

Thirdly, what of the alleged tell tale signs that a circle is genuine
can be found in the oil-seed formations, i.e. exploded nodes, etc. ?

>Do you mean, Why did the formations evolve from circles and
>formations of circles to much more complex patterns?

I didn't actually, I meant why the vortex theory, ley line
theory, eti theory, none can be hoaxed, some can be hoaxed, most
can be hoaxed, only the true geometric formations are genuine,
those which aren't are significant etc. etc. It seems that each
time the cerealogists are caught out they come back with an
alternative theory which claims a mystery. Doesn't it seem that
they are literally clutching at straws to make a mystery out of
something that is purely man made?

>their strategy could be similar relative to crop circles -- to give
>the skeptics the option of not being forced to believe in the
>reality of what they would prefer to ignore.

The circle makers have disclosed for years how they make crop
circles, perhaps it's the believers that UFOs are connected are
the ones who prefer to ignore the reality of the circles?

Tony





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                             Dr. Leir's Recovery

From: Derrel Sims <derrel@holman.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:00:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:45:38 -0400
Subject: Dr. Leir's Recovery


Dear friends, investigators and fellows in thE UFO field:

Dr. Roger Leir is in dire straights medically.  There is a new
procedure (we are told) that may help him with his heart
condition.  we ask for your prayers for him and his wife Sharon,
and daughter Shaina.  The medical people will do what they can.
We must do what we do best, so please do what you do best.

There is another issue... his family is in dire straights
financially. The hospital bills are only one problem he has.
His personal bills are still there as well.  If his podiatry
practice is not maintained (office help and other services) he
will lose this as well. Since this is his practice and his
primary income, please send what you can.  You may be in
financial difficulties (as many are), but please send something.
This is very important.  If you cannot send any financial
support now or later, please do the one above.  Pray for Roger
and his family.

May God give us the wisdom and the grace to accept healing and
to give it as well.  This is a time for healinG.

Derrel and Doris Sims


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

Dear Friends,

I talked with Sharon Leir this morning and she told me that
Roger was re-admitted to the hospital last night. Now I have
received the following from Whitley Strieber. We must really do
some serious praying for Roger.

Thank you for redoubling your prayers.

Please pass this on to as many as possible.

I did just get an update from Mike Portanova, who said that
Roger was suffering angina pains last night and re-entered the
hospital. But he said he is doing fine and that the doctors feel
he will recover. There are several arteries that have problems,
and can't be operated on at this time. But other therapies can
be used, along with diet and exercise, and medication. This is
good news, but we still need a lot more prayer!!

Thank you,

Don Robertson
Ventura/SB MUFON:

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

Dear Don, and friends,

Roger will, must recover.  Don, our prayers are with him, as
they were with you and your wife in your times of distress.  I
know Sharon and Shaina are with him every moment, as are all
there in the area.  This is healing too.  I have seen Roger in
sickness, in T.O., in Japan, and other places on our trips
together.  Where his friends were near him, he always recovered.
It is what he does.

In Japan his illness was so severe the Japanese were so worried
I think they thought he might expire.  I was a day late in
getting to Japan.  By the time I got there the Japanese were
waiting for me at the train station.  The all looked like they
were about to go to a funeral.  When I asked what the problem
was, they mentioned that "Dr. Leir is very sick".  When I got to
the Hotel, I came in to see him immediately.  After checking in
on Roger, I went to put my bags in my room.  While doing this,
Roger called me.  He was in great agony. He asked me to "use my
magic of hypnotic anesthesia on him".  I had never seen him in
such pain. This pain was due to chronic "gut condition" (as Rog
refers to it).  The benefits seemed to be effective and he was
in deep trance in a few moments.  By morning he was up and
jumping around (literally) like a boy.  The Japanese were very
excited and relieved.  Dr. Jesse Marcel Jr. was in some sickness
as well that morning.  Later Dr. Haines had some difficulty as
well.  That may have been the difference in foods of one nation
from another? Roger's conditon has been with him for a while.
If Rog can recover from that, then he will recover from this, we
all pray to that effect.

He should be up and at them soon.  On our travels, I would often
carry most of our bags.  This was to conserve his strength.
Roger has had a heart condition for some time. All his friends
know this.  He must be encouraged (by all those who are with him
when he eats and is at work), to follow the advice of the
doctors at this time.  Most of us do not do that (as we should)
in these situations.  This advice is for his continued recovery
and best of health for the rest of his life.  Please insist that
Roger stay on proper diet, and exercise in a way that is
consistent with the best medical advice he is being given.

Roger is sometimes hardheaded.  Many people in the medical
profession are.  They have to be. Rog often mentions that he is
not afraid of death.  That I admire.  Following his own Dr.'s
advice is what I admire more.  Please insist on Roger to follow
the heart specialists advice.  Those of us who have been around
him most know this is essential for him to do so, especially
now.

Don I totally agree with you.  Doubling up on our prayers is the
best thing we can all do.  Thank you for the updates and your
continued word on Roger's condition.

Derrel/Doris Sims






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                 Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:43:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:54:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999


>From: Karl Pflock <Ktperehwon@aol.com>
>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:50:01 EDT
>Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>I don't know what Stan spoke of at the conference, but if he
>addressed the star map and its implications, then he just may
>have contributed in some small degree to bringing abductology
>back down to earth, so to speak, and to re-linking the subject
>in some substantial way to ufology.


Yes, Karl, Stan did talk about the star map. Thanks for reminding
me, and reminding all of us of Stan's long-time interest in it.

Greg Sandow







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                 Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?

From: Kim Burrafato <lensman@stardrive.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 21:05:52 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 08:08:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?


>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
>Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?
>Date: Sun, 30 May 99 22:40:31 PDT

>>Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 22:22:32 -0400
>>From: Paul Badger <pbadger@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

><snip>

>>I haven't read the article, but from the brief reference made to
>>it on the CUFOS website, I get the impression that the point of
>>the story is that the hair alleged to have been left behind by
>>the entity has human DNA, albeit very rare, and not a DNA that
>>is unrecognisable and thus "alien". Am I right?

>I expected my IUR article to create some controversy, but
>probably not before people have had a chance to read it (eg.
>Paul Badger). Yes Paul there is a lot more to this than the few
>lines you have made some premature conclusions from.

>I urge you to read the IUR piece first.  It is a complex and
>detailed piece (15 pages) and then perhaps comment further.

>Yes the DNA profile found is "human" but it is "from one of the
>rarest human lineages known ... that lies further from the
>(human) mainstream than any other except for African Pygmies and
>aboriginals".  The DNA sequencing fits only "a Chinese
>mongoloid" however the hair is blonde, rather than black, as you
>would expect from a Chinese donor.  Also the source of the hair
>was an alleged tall blonde haired female, who apart from very
>unusual "blue" eyes" a few times larger than standard human, and
>a long narrow face with pinty chin, unusual strength &
>behaviour, one might type as Scandanavian or dare I say "Nordic"
>with long exotic blonde hair and fair skin, certainly no Asian
>like feature.  There were 2 "women" present.  The other looked
>somewhat Asian in appearance, but had black hair, so she was not
>an obvious source of the blonde hair which we subjected to PCR
>DNA testing.

>As for "human" DNA, we need to consider the widespread reports
>of "human" like beings in abduction literature - Villas Boas,
>Travis Walton, there are many more.

>Then we need to consider are these exotic "human" similar to us
>in more ways than just appearance.  Is their biological
>structure also based on a DNA structure.  There are endless
>questions & speculations here.

>Also consider "human" type panspermia theories.  Check out
>Appendix 2 "The Argument for Duplicate Beings" in Paul Davies
>book "Are We Alone?" (1995) and also the closing paragraphs of
>Davies book "The Fifth Miracle" (1998).

>Finally, I once again urge you to read the IUR article.  It is
>much too detailed and complex to attempt a summary here and
>beside you will be supporting a very worth while publication -
>IUR.  You need to have all the data to make an informed
>response.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                            Re: Steve Neill Walks

From: Steve Neill <neill@gte.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 01:12:55 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 08:17:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Steve Neill Walks


>From: Sharon Kardol <sharon@hotmix.com.au>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Steve Neill Walks
>Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:54:00 +0800

>>From: Jeff Rense <eotl@west.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Steve Neill Walks
>>Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 01:40:25 -0700 (PDT)

>>Steve Neill, Renowned UFO Researcher and Artist, Quits Ufology

>>>From Steve Neill <neill@gte.net>

>>5-15-99

>>After being involved in the most serious UFO research and direct
>>experiences with ET all my life, the behavior of most of the UFO
>>community has become such a disgrace, so vile and demented, that
>>I have decided to withdraw from the field permanently.

>>All the petty, infantile mudslinging and politics, the
>>backstabbing and throat-slitting, the egos and the liars, the
>>radio cult figures, the betrayal of 'friendships' have all
>>overshadowed the critical issues at hand...and have often made a
>>virtual laughing stock of anyone who innocently tries to tell
>>the truth.

>>The UFO 'community' is its own worst enemy.  Any respect this
>>field might have had or been due to receive has been destroyed
>>by the actions of many, if not most, of the key players
>>involved. I say *most* involved because there are some very good
>>professional people in the field...but they are a relative few
>>and maintain low profiles for the most part.

><snip>

>Dear Steve,

>I don't want to start an inter-continental war here, but I was
>curious as to whether you were referring to your experiences
>with the American UFO community.

>Being an Australian, I have to say there is very litttle if not
>none at all, of this destroying of characters and bitter in
>fighting here.  Sure personalities do clash, but we have tried
>to unite to research as a productive unit.  I wasn't aware of
>this mud-slinging in Ufology until I joined a few US mail lists
>and corresponded with American reseachers.

>I'm not trying to bag you 'murikans' :), just offering sympathy
>because it's hard enough here fighting the prejudices of
>the general public and govt departments, let alone fighting
>with those with whom you should get the most support.
>Hey, perhaps you should move down under? :)

>Good Luck where your life takes you now, and we hope you find
>some peace in your adventures

>Cheers
>Sharon K

Thanks for your message Sharon. I've had so much support on
this. But UFOs in America, well you know how Americans can be.

It's clear that there are many more serious researchers then I
first thought, but these people stay away from the carnival
aspects and are usually accused of being with the intelligence
community. That has already happened to me with the types that
live for the Art Bell show. Thanks again for writing and best of
luck to you too!

Sincerely,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                             Note To UK Readers

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:54:24 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 08:20:55 -0400
Subject: Note To UK Readers


Just a note to readers in London and region that the next
informal Magonia meeting takes place in the Railway pub, Putney
High Street, SW14 this Sunday, June 6th, from about 7.15 pm
onwards.

All welcome if you're in the neighbourhood (it's a Wetherspoon's
pub so we can talk without a background of deafening music!).

--
John Rimmer
www.magonia.demon.co.uk
Abandon hope all ye who press Enter 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                       (Skyopen) Lecture in Hong Kong

From: Jean-Michel Mariojouls <jmexit@macau.ctm.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 08:38:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 08:38:13 -0400
Subject: (Skyopen) Lecture in Hong Kong


Hi everybody!

This is to inform you that I will participate to a lecture
organized by the Hong Kong UFO Club at the Hong Kong Space
Museum on Saturday 5th of June, between 6:00PM and 9:00PM.

The global theme will be asian UFO cases and footages from
Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong and Macau. I will
introduce Skywatch International and present some cases and
footages from Macau, included the strange phenomenon occuring
here since 1996.

Jean-Michel Mariojouls
China Director





***************************
SKYWATCH INTERNATIONAL INC.
(A Non-Profit Organization)

Administrative:                 Membership:                Postings/Mailing
PO Box 900393                   PO Box 801                 PO Box 2154
Palmdale, CA 93590-0393         Leander, TX 78646-0801     Elk City, OK 73648
USA                             USA                        USA





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                      'Stein Online' - Constance Clear

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 21:53:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 21:53:31 -0400
Subject: 'Stein Online' - Constance Clear




Source: http://broadcast.com/shows/stein/

CompuServe Interactive Radio and broadcast.com
Presents: "STEIN ONLINE" with Eliot Stein

Thursday, June 3, 1999

7:00-8:00 p.m. ET
GUEST: Constance Clear
TOPIC: Alien Abductions

Psychotherapist Constance Clear will relate first-hand
accounts of individuals that came to her with claims of
alien abductions. She is the author of "Reaching For
Reality: Seven Incredible True Stories of Alien Abduction."





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                     Re: (Skyopen) Lecture in Hong Kong

From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:44:32 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 21:53:31 -0400
Subject: Re: (Skyopen) Lecture in Hong Kong


>From: Jean-Michel Mariojouls <jmexit@macau.ctm.net>
>To: Skywatch International list <skywatch@ltlb.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 11:32 AM
>Subject: Lecture in Hong Kong

>This is to inform you that I will participate to a lecture
>organized by the Hong Kong UFO Club at the Hong Kong Space
>Museum on Saturday 5th of June, between 6:00PM and 9:00PM.

>The global theme will be asian UFO cases and footages from
>Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong and Macau. I will
>introduce Skywatch International and present some cases and
>footages from Macau, included the strange phenomenon occuring
>here since 1996.

Perhaps you could summarize some of the cases you mention above
and post them to the UFO UpDates mailing list for the benefit of
worldwide subscribers outside of Hong Kong?  I'm sure reports
from that area would be of interest.  Alternately, a web page
that discusses such cases would be of interest.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

               Australian UFO Research Network/OZ File Report

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@fan.net.au>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:45:59 +1000
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 21:53:31 -0400
Subject: Australian UFO Research Network/OZ File Report


The Keith Basterfield Network Australasia
E-Mail tkbnetw@fan.net.au
http://www.fan.net.au/~tkbnetw
***************************************************************
UFO Australian Research Network Hot Line Number
            1800 77 22 88 Free Call
***************************************************************

Hi everyone

It would appear Keith Douglass has been very busy investigating
& collecting sighting reports in outback Alice Springs.

Keith called me last night to say a farmer 150 klm from Alice
Springs out near Aritunga, called him to report the death of one
of his horses. Keith said the farmer has lived in the area for
many years and has never had an animal die in such a strange
way. The farmer said there was no sign of the horse stumbling
before its death has their should have been.

The farmer thought it was a little strange the horse was legs up
and there was no sign of the horse having struggled because the
ground was not disturbed at all.

The farmer said he thought he would report it because of the UFO
sighting which accrued near his farm on April 18th 1999 when a
photo was taken of an alleged UFO.

More details to come - still under 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:28:46 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:00:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:03:18 -0400
>From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 23:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

>>Thanks for listing them, Tony. I suppose if there were as many
>>as 500 such reports, they would still be dismissed as anecdotal,
>>for the same reason that several hundred thousand screened UFO
>>reports are treated the same way by negative skeptics. But it
>>would be interesting to interview these four persons and form
>>one's own opinion as to their sincerity and character.

>Do you have the full details of what these eyewitnesses actually
>claim to have seen? If so, I'd like to view their accounts and
>details of the alleged formations that were created.

>>But at least Terence Meaden thought these witnesses' reports were
>>worth noting, which is more than most anti-UFO advocates would do.

>I have noted it also but a few names, dates and vague areas
>doesn't constitute worthwhile testimony. Where are the full
>accounts of what these people saw?

>>For the same reason that hoaxed crop circles in oil-seed rape
>>are extremely rare. That thick-stemmed crop consists of quite
>>bushy plants that are rather unmanageable when you get in there
>>with your boards and all. I suppose someone has tried to make a
>>crop circle in it, but if so, they must have left quite a mess
>>of broken and irregularly tangled stems.

>Firstly, you seem to be implying here that I have a set of
>boards, just because I believe that circles are man made doesn't
>make me a circle maker. You believe some formations are UFO
>created, that doesn't make you an alien <g>

>Secondly, have you actually tried to create a circle in oil-seed
>to test your theory? From what I've learned, crop is cushoned by
>other crop when flattening, which shelters an extremely large
>percentage of stems from being broken. Some apparently are
>broken, but barring checking every single stem a cerealogist
>wouldn't obviously see them. You mentioned 'Circular Evidence'
>before, Colin Andrews explained how crop can not be flattened
>using string across the radius as the pressure is too great, so
>we have evidence that what the circle makers say is likely to be
>correct.

>Thirdly, what of the alleged tell tale signs that a circle is genuine
>can be found in the oil-seed formations, i.e. exploded nodes, etc. ?

>>Do you mean, Why did the formations evolve from circles and
>>formations of circles to much more complex patterns?

>I didn't actually, I meant why the vortex theory, ley line
>theory, eti theory, none can be hoaxed, some can be hoaxed, most
>can be hoaxed, only the true geometric formations are genuine,
>those which aren't are significant etc. etc. It seems that each
>time the cerealogists are caught out they come back with an
>alternative theory which claims a mystery. Doesn't it seem that
>they are literally clutching at straws to make a mystery out of
>something that is purely man made?

>>their strategy could be similar relative to crop circles -- to give
>>the skeptics the option of not being forced to believe in the
>>reality of what they would prefer to ignore.

>The circle makers have disclosed for years how they make crop
>circles, perhaps it's the believers that UFOs are connected are
>the ones who prefer to ignore the reality of the circles?


Hi,

I have been following this debate with interest, as I trust has
Paul Fuller. Paul and I have written three books on circles and
been involved since before Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado even.
We have spent a lot of time collating eyewitness accounts and
both of us have interviewed some. Dozens of cases exist and you
will find plenty in the l993 updated edition of our book 'Crop
Circles: A Mystery Solved?'  (Robert Hale).

In essence eyewitnesses describe glowing rotating dome shaped
lights at night (often with electrical effects) and dark, grey,
misty lens shapes in daytime (often generating electroststic
fields).

One vital key is that we never found a single case where a
witness saw a complex formation created. Nearly all eyewitnesses
are to simple, single circles. Eyewitness cases date back a long
time and we have examples from pre 20th century.

Hope this helps.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                 Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?

From: Judith Dale <judithdale@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 09:11:50 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:03:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?


>Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 21:05:52 -0700
>From: Kim Burrafato <lensman@stardrive.org>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?

>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
>>Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 99 22:40:31 PDT

>>>Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 22:22:32 -0400
>>>From: Paul Badger <pbadger@compuserve.com>
>>>Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>><snip>

>>>I haven't read the article, but from the brief reference made to
>>>it on the CUFOS website, I get the impression that the point of
>>>the story is that the hair alleged to have been left behind by
>>>the entity has human DNA, albeit very rare, and not a DNA that
>>>is unrecognisable and thus "alien". Am I right?

><snip>

>>Yes the DNA profile found is "human" but it is "from one of the
>>rarest human lineages known ... that lies further from the
>>(human) mainstream than any other except for African Pygmies and
>>aboriginals".  The DNA sequencing fits only "a Chinese
>>mongoloid" however the hair is blonde, rather than black, as you
>>would expect from a Chinese donor.  Also the source of the hair
>>was an alleged tall blonde haired female, who apart from very
>>unusual "blue" eyes" a few times larger than standard human, and
>>a long narrow face with pinty chin, unusual strength &
>>behaviour, one might type as Scandanavian or dare I say "Nordic"
>>with long exotic blonde hair and fair skin, certainly no Asian
>>like feature.  There were 2 "women" present.  The other looked
>>somewhat Asian in appearance, but had black hair, so she was not
>>an obvious source of the blonde hair which we subjected to PCR
>>DNA testing.

>>As for "human" DNA, we need to consider the widespread reports
>>of "human" like beings in abduction literature - Villas Boas,
>>Travis Walton, there are many more.

>>Then we need to consider are these exotic "human" similar to us
>>in more ways than just appearance.  Is their biological
>>structure also based on a DNA structure.  There are endless
>>questions & speculations here.

>>Also consider "human" type panspermia theories.  Check out
>>Appendix 2 "The Argument for Duplicate Beings" in Paul Davies
>>book "Are We Alone?" (1995) and also the closing paragraphs of
>>Davies book "The Fifth Miracle" (1998).

>>Finally, I once again urge you to read the IUR article.  It is
>>much too detailed and complex to attempt a summary here and
>>beside you will be supporting a very worth while publication -
>>IUR.  You need to have all the data to make an informed
>>response.

>I've been wondering how long it would take for biological trace
>evidence like this to show up.  The fact that the hair is of an
>extremely rare human line -- Chinese mongoloid -- and blonde to
>boot -- is intriguing.  But it's not definitive proof of
>extraterrestrial origin.  My question to those well versed in
>molecular genetics, is what would constitute DNA that could be
>generally regarded as being of non-terrestrial origin?  How
>different would it have to be from the DNA of the simplest
>terrestrial organism in order to be defined as "ET DNA"?  And
>let's not forget, there may be biological entities out there
>that reproduce via an entirely different molecular biochemstry,
>not dependent on DNA/RNA synthesis.


There has been much written regarding the interfacing of humans
and 'aliens', from ancient times to present day. Indeed, thanks
to the hard work of several researchers, much information has
been brought forth from the depths of ancient writings found on
tablets, walls of buildings, walls of caves, rock faces, and
various scrolls or books. Information that seems to indicate a
long history of human and 'alien' involvement. Some of this
information seems to demonstrate that humans, in fact, are the
result of ancient genetic manipulations. Despite Darwin's
'Theory of Evolution', and all of the evidence coming forth from
the work of archeologists and anthropologists, we still seem to
be missing 'the link' between humanity and other similar life
forms on this planet.

I find this new evidence to be intriguing. I do not find it
strange that it appears to be of a rare 'human lineage'. I am
interested, however, to see how the DNA compares with our human
DNA now being mapped in the 'Genome Project'. Perhaps we shall
find that these so called 'aliens' are not so 'alien' after all,
and so merely human types from elsewhere.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                UFO Centre To Be Launched In Window Area, UK

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:02:04 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:06:41 -0400
Subject: UFO Centre To Be Launched In Window Area, UK


>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:54:24 +0100
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Note To UK Readers

>Just a note to readers in London and region that the next
>informal Magonia meeting takes place in the Railway pub, Putney
>High Street, SW14 this Sunday, June 6th, from about 7.15 pm
>onwards.

>John Rimmer
>www.magonia.demon.co.uk


Hi,

I did not think it was proper to plug events on UpDates, but I
will follow John's lead.

On Monday 7 June at 7 for 7.30 pm I am giving a lecture on the
development of UFO activity in the very active window area of
the Rossendale Valley, Lancashire. The venue is the Leisure Hall
on Burnley Road, Bacup. For details phone: 01706 - 879 338

This is tied to an exciting venture. Some local businessmen and
the council are working to set up the first permanent UFO centre
- certainly in the UK and possibly the world. This would
comprise an exhibition, lecture and conference site, archive and
library and a sky watch site within this hyper active UFO
region. Links with Jodrell Bank to help scientific credibility
and provide things like an astronomy tuition component to ground
the sky watchers are being sought. The scheme is apparently well
advanced and local MPs and the like plan to be there on Monday,
I am told.  So it is a chance for ufologists to ensure that if
this idea is done it is done well and does not turn out to be
some tacky tourist set up but of genuine educational benefit.

The reason I am giving the lecture, by the way, is simple. I was
born in Rossendale and lived in Bacup during my childhood. So I
am supporting my home town!

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:09:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:03:18 -0400
>From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 23:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

>>Thanks for listing them, Tony. I suppose if there were as many
>>as 500 such reports, they would still be dismissed as anecdotal,
>>for the same reason that several hundred thousand screened UFO
>>reports are treated the same way by negative skeptics. But it
>>would be interesting to interview these four persons and form
>>one's own opinion as to their sincerity and character.

>>But at least Terence Meaden thought these witnesses' reports were
>>worth noting, which is more than most anti-UFO advocates would do.

>Do you have the full details of what these eyewitnesses actually
>claim to have seen? If so, I'd like to view their accounts and
>details of the alleged formations that were created.

>I have noted it also but a few names, dates and vague areas
>doesn't constitute worthwhile testimony. Where are the full
>accounts of what these people saw?

Tony,

I don't know who, if anyone, has any written reports, full or
partial, from these four. I suppose Colin Andrews or other
British crop-formation investigators would be the ones to
contact on that.

>...
>Secondly, have you actually tried to create a circle in oil-seed
>to test your theory?

No, I leave that up to the crop-circle experts. But my own
opinion, after examining a stand of it that I didn't want to
tromple, was that it would be a hopeless task to do an
impressive hoax job on it.

>You mentioned 'Circular Evidence'
>before, Colin Andrews explained how crop can not be flattened
>using string across the radius as the pressure is too great, so
>we have evidence that what the circle makers say is likely to be
>correct.

The supposed "string" technique was first offered up by negative
skeptics as a hoaxing technique because of the circular shapes
of many of the earlier ones, before Colin dispelled that one.

Here's one for you to  ponder, since you have Noyes' (editor)
_The Crop Circle Enigma_. Go to p. 22 of that book and you'll
see diagrams made by Terence Meaden and Colin Andrews of the
crop circle of 1 Aug. '86 at Headbourne Worthy, Hampshire. It
was a two-layer system, with an underlayer swirled one way and
an upper layer above it, covering it, swirled such that the lay
of the stems was at right angles to that of the layer just
underneath. The diagrams depict the direction of the respective
swirls. The photograph of it is shown on p. 36 of _Circular
Evidence_ by Delgado & Andrews.

You won't find any crop-circle naysayer talking about this one,
or speculating on how it could have been hoaxed, or trying to
demonstrate how it might be hoaxed. That's because it's pretty
mind-boggling just to wonder about. You have to imagine that
somehow every other crop stem out of the many thousands was
first bent over (without breaking the stems) in one direction of
swirl while the remaining stems all around stood intact. Then,
these intact stems were bent over with a swirl at right angles
to the swirl given to the other stems.

>Thirdly, what of the alleged tell tale signs that a circle is genuine
>can be found in the oil-seed formations, i.e. exploded nodes, etc. ?

Such tell-tale signs have been found most notably in other
crops, with wheat receiving the most attention, I believe. You
could write the BLT research team for more details on that.
Recall that posting from Nancy Talbott I originally was trying
to bring to your attention, with excerpt below:

>Yes, control studies have been conducted; BLT has made circles
>with feet, planks & rope,and cement rollers, then sampled the
>crop as we normally do to look for the regularly-found plant
>anomalies.

>We did _not_ find (1) node elongation of the plant stems, (2)
>expulsion cavities at the nodes of plant stems, (3) altered
>redox ratios (measurements of mitochondrial respiration rates),
>or (4) altered germination characteristics in the downed plants
>when compared with controls taken elsewhere in the test fields.

> Nancy Talbott
> BLT Research,
> Box 400127,
> Cambridge, MA
> 02140, USA.

The "B" stands for John Burke, the "T" stands for Talbott, and
the L for Dr. Wm. C. Levingood, who did manage to get a paper or
two (or more since 1994?) into the peer-reviewed literature on
it, and in it he does describe some of the anomalies in detail.
His paper is "Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants,"
_Physiologia Plantarum_ 92 (1994), pp. 356-363.

>>Do you mean, Why did the formations evolve from circles and
>>formations of circles to much more complex patterns?

>I didn't actually, I meant why the vortex theory, ley line
>theory, eti theory, none can be hoaxed, some can be hoaxed, most
>can be hoaxed, only the true geometric formations are genuine,
>those which aren't are significant etc. etc. It seems that each
>time the cerealogists are caught out they come back with an
>alternative theory which claims a mystery. Doesn't it seem that
>they are literally clutching at straws to make a mystery out of
>something that is purely man made?

It's the other way around. There is a lot of conclusive evidence
that the real crop-circle formations can't be hoaxed, because
hoaxers can't reproduce any of the extremely important details.
All they can do is make a pattern that, if they do it carefully,
may look OK when photographed from an airplane. But that's good
enough to satisfy those who don't want to admit that
beyond-human intelligence is at work. They're the ones who don't
want to mention or discuss Levingood's work, or that two-layer
crop-circle system I mentioned above, or the braided systems, or
the several cases where the stems were all bent over from one to
several inches above the ground, or why, in thousands of cases
of "genuine" crop formations, no hoaxers have been caught making
them, etc.

Jim Deardorff
http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                Recent Scotland UFO Activity - Case Feedback

From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 17:56:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:24:22 -0400
Subject: Recent Scotland UFO Activity - Case Feedback


Dear listmembers,

Here a few recent sighting reports FYI that have been received
via the UFO Scotland website over the past month or so.

We feel that it is important to share with other researchers and
organisations from around the world, any findings or patterns
etc that emerge from our data-base.

Many of the reports are still under investigation but we felt
that it was important to post these reports for the benefit of
the ufo community at large as well as other researchers with an
interest in Scotland's ongoing ufo phenomena.

Secondly, I would like to take this opportunity to ask for some
help or assistance from any of our colleagues that are familiar
with unusual writings, symbols or channelling type experiences.
I do remember a few posts going through the lists over the last
few years that have mentioned such writings and symbols etc.

We were recently approached at UFO Scotland, by a man from Fife
in Scotland who has logged and documented a series of unusual
scripts and symbols that he received during the years of
1991-1994. The subject himself is a very sincere and down to
earth type person, although he accepts that the whole episode of
the channelled writings etc was bizarre and remains a mystery to
him to this day. He has requested help so that he may learn more
about these unusual experiences, and for that reason I would
like to appeal to anyone who has either researched or
experienced such events in the past, to please get in touch with
us at UFO Scotland so that we may try to research this phenomena
a little further and also to get some answers for our client.

We have added a small portion of the strange writings and
symbols to our website in the hope that other folks who have
experienced similar experiences can come forward and exchange
notes etc. Our client is most keen to meet and talk with others
who may identify with his writings and channelling experiences.
The page containing the script and writings can be found at:

http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger/writings.htm

We ask that the readers will visit this page and please reply to
us if they feel that they may be able to further add to this
incident. I sincerely thank you all in advance and look forward
to any positive feedback concerning this unusual case.

Thanks for your time and good luck to all on the lists.

>From your friend,

                Dave Ledger (UFO Scotland)

Sighting reports follow below:

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

Subject: East Kilbride UFO's Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 10:58:16
+0100 Source: Robert G Henderson <Robert@bowmontpl.demon.co.uk>

About a year or so ago around midnight, a light was visible in
the sky. As one who has an interest in aviation it struck me
that the pattern of movement of this light was not like that of
a fixed wing aircraft or indeed a helicopter. It moved at high
speed and then came to a sudden stop a few times in the sky.  As
it was night it was hard to judge the height of the object.  I
could see no detail due to the distance involved, but it
certainly would not have been the local police helicopter which
has a distinctive engine sound.  There have been many sightings
over East Kilbride in the last year all of which have been
"officially explained".  I remain unconvinced.

****************************************************************

Name : Candice Powers
date: : April 1997
location: : Brora, Sutherland, Scotland
time : late evening
PM : on

Eye-witness Report : I was with my friend,who, incidentally is a
prominent figure in Britain, in his car outside of the house
where I was staying.  As near as I can accurately remember, We
were looking at what we thought was Venus or Mars in the sky
when we both saw a big, bright flash of light just beneath the
star we were looking at. We both exclaimed, "Did you see that?!"
and then it happened again.  There was a 'star' that then began
moving around in the sky in a zig zag sort of motion, not at all
straight like a plane or anything else you might recognize, and
went behind some clouds.  We thought that was the last of it
when it suddenly appeared on the other side of the cloud.  It
moved about a bit more then disappeared again in the next cloud.
We felt priveleged to have seen it!

****************************************************************

Name : Gareth Morgan
date: : 23/4/99
location: : Downpatrick
time : 8.30 PM

Eye-witness Report : I was looking out my skylight window when I
noticed an unusually bright light over my neighbours house. It
the shot straight up in the air and just disappeared. Then half
an hour later it appeared again, so I told my whole family to
look. It sat there for ten minutes while we looked at it then it
went out in a similar fashion to a dimmer switch. It then
appeared again, a minute later higher still, and to the left of
the house. It flashed and then never appeared again.

****************************************************************

Subject: Unusual object spotted near Falkland Hill in Fife.
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999
Source: Thanks to UFO Scotland team member Lewis Burt.

Eye-witness Report: I was driving home into Star of Markinch at
around 9pm when I looked to the NE and high in the sky was a
very bright orange light hovering, slightly moving downwards.  I
stopped the car and watched it for about twenty seconds.
Gradually it burned out.  It looked like the colour of fire and
it was very bright.  First I thought it to be a planet however.
I stopped the car and opened the window but I could not hear any
sound.

It was seen roughly high above the same location as that
September sighting in Drummy Woods.  The conditions at the time
were clear sky, almost full moon and fairly warm for this time
of year.  No clouds in sight.

Perhaps it could have been a plane falling, burning out of the
sky but theres been nothing on the news that I've heard.

****************************************************************

Subject: Strange anomaly observed near Crail on Scotland's East coast.
Name :   Witness names witheld by request.
Date: :  November 3, 1997
location: Crail, Fife, Scotland
time :  Evening PM

Eye-witness sighting report:  On the evening of November 3,
1997, I was sitting on the back porch reading an article in the
daily newspaper and talking with my wife. Just as we were
preparing to go inside, a distinct feature in the sky caught our
eyes.  It appeared to be an oval shaped object moving parallel
to the ground. The object had a bright blueish coloured lining
around the outside of it.  The core, if you will, was a redish
orange colored.  As it moved, we observed a second smaller
object depart from the larger one.  This was a small circular
shaped aircraft and it was a solid blue.  I can also remember a
very discrete high pithced ringing, if you will. After about ten
to fifteen minutes of observation, the smaller object, which had
been circling the larger this whole time, seemed to connect or
enter back into the larger object.  As soon as this happened the
oval shaped object proceeded to shoot straight up.  It didn't
shoot up so fast that it disappeared instantly though. It seemed
to gradually disappear, as if it were exiting the atmosphere.
This whole sighting lasted around twenty minutes and left us
in awe.

****************************************************************

Subject: Alien Abduction in Grangemouth?
Date:  6th January 1996
Name : Eye-witness name witheld by request.
Location: : Grangemouth, Falkirk, Scotland
time : 1-30am till 2-20am

Eye-witness report: From the back door of my home, my family
have a clear view of the skies over Grangemouth. On the night of
6th Jan 1996, I retired to my bed (downstairs) with my 10yr old
daughter at around 12-45am.

Just as i was dozing off I sensed something, a feeling, did I
hear something? I was`nt sure. I sat bolt upright, my daughter
still asleep as my dog was trying to get comfortable at the
bottom of the bed.

As I lay there thinking it was my dog I became quite scared,
almost like the feeling you get on waking from a nightmare all
jelly like. However I snuggled up next to my daughter and I am
sure I went to sleep.

I awoke with the feeling my daughter was sliding out of the bed
and I reached over to pull her back into bed. A few seconds
later I felt it again, I spoke this time to her. I told her to
stay in bed and as I spoke I felt scared again and I felt
panicky. My dog was crying over at the window, "lie down i
said".

Again I lay down just as I heard my son running downstairs and
shouting "look!", pointing to the window with a pair of
binoculars.

"It is just a plane light" I said,  "No! i have been watching it
for ages with my cousin" "Look again!"  which I did and I saw a
single light in the sky pulsating. It seemed to be moving ever
so slightly towards the east and back to where it originated
from.

As I was staring at it through the glasses, three lights shot
out from the top and two from the bottom of the anomaly. The
small lights jaggedly danced through the air but were always
returning to the slightly brighter light.

Myself, my daughter, my son and his cousin all ran up the stairs
to the bedroom above and opened the window (the whole window
opens inward). We stood and watched while all the lights became
one. Again it moved towards the east and back, then it was as if
it saw us and came towards us!

It was going to go directly over the house. I stepped onto the
window ledge and when I was looking up, I noticed it was not a
sphere shape. As the lights flashed it left the outline of a
"V", the same effect you would get if you stood in a dark room
and switched the light off and on, you are left with a shadow of
a shape.

We all ran into the front bedroom, opened the window and waited
on it appearing above the house and it did.

My daughter at this time was begining to hyperventilate, so we
were trying to keep her calm and watch the anomaly at the
same-time.

It began to move towards the South,or South East and kept going
for what I would estimate to be about a mile.

Someone shouted "there was another one straight ahead", but this
instance was indeed a plane using it`s usual flightpath towards
the West.

I glanced back at the light and it had changed directions,
towards the plane. As the plane reached S,SW, the light seemed
to be directly ready to hit the plane. There was a dark grey
mist which had mysteriously appeared and then the light was gone
and of course the plane was fine.

When we looked at the time it was 2,20am. My son said it was
about 2,00am when he and his cousin came downstairs.

I did tell others the following day, but what proof had we got?
My daughter did not want anyone to know incase they all thought
she was weird.

My son did some sketches of that night, he said he and his
cousin had been watching the unusual light for 15minutes before
he came downstairs that night.

I have heard of abductees becoming ill, headaches, memory loss,
painful joints and muscular aches, is there any truth to this?
and if so what can a person do?

I am a or was a sceptic until this happened. I believed in god
and god only but now I am not so sure, it is as if nothing makes
sense any more!

****************************************************************

Subject: More UFOs sighted over Kirkcaldy in Fife.
Name : Bill Robertson
date: : 11th April 1999
location: : Kirkcaldy, Fife, Scotland.
time : Between 22:40 and 23:30 PM

Eye-witness Report : Whilst looking out of our front window,
Myself, my wife and my 16yr old daughter all observed an
extremely bright light low in the sky(positioned between two
houses at a level well below the roof apex of a small nearby
house). This was stationary and remained there for approx 30min
(the duration we observed.)

Its disappearance was noted by all three of us again and further
confirmed by myself going outside and walking to the top of our
street to see if I could locate its current position.

Whilst returning to the house after approx 10 mins, I saw it
disappearing over the top of some trees to the south of our
housing estate. This light was now much more intense and I can
only assume that this was due to the object being closer to our
location.

I quickly ran to the house in order to get a camera and possibly
follow the object in my car, however, it had gone from view. I
immediately proceeded to the location where i last saw the light
but there was no sign of the same anomaly in the surrounding
skies.

****************************************************************

RED DISC HOVERS OVER CARNOUSTIE, SCOTLAND
Source: UFO ROUNDUP Volume 4, Number 11, originally from Dundee Evening
Telegram.
Date: March 15, 1999
Editor: Joseph Trainor

"An unidentified flying object spotted in Angus skies near
Carnoustie this morning has left a number of people mystified."

"One Carnoustie resident, who sought to remain anonymous, said
he had been fairly sceptical about such things but wanted an
explanation for what he had seen."

"He and several members of his family, along with a Forfar
couple, saw a strange red disc moving about in the sky between
6:30 and 6:55 a.m. this morning."

"Neither the Coastguard or members of staff at RAF Leuchars
could shed any light on the sighting."

"I was out walking the dog with my wife and children at the
Black Slab car park this morning," (Friday, March 12, 1999) he
said, "We saw this red oblong shape in the sky and it couldn't
have been the moon or a star because of the way it was moving.
It then just disappeared.'"

A car pulled up beside the family, and the driver stuck his head
out the window.  "'The man in the car said he was from Forfar
and had seen the light earlier, and we could see that he was
distressed.'"

The family continued walking along the beach, and, at 6:55 a.m.,
the UFO appeared again.

"'I'm neither a believer nor a non-believer in UFOs. But this
time it changed from red to bright orange and it was much
bigger,' he continued, 'Anybody looking at the sky could have
seen it.  It was that big.  You couldn't miss it.'"

"A member of the Fife Coastguard said there had been no reports
of flares or other lights."

"A spokesman at RAF Leuchars discounted any official aerial
activity from the Fife airbase.  'I know of no operations in the
area by any of our flights,' he said.

Carnoustie is a port city on Scotland's east coast about 60
miles (100 kilometers) northeast of Edinburgh, the capital.
(See the Dundee Evening Telegram for March 12, 1999, "Carnoustie
disc remains a mystery."  Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for
forwarding the newspaper article.)

****************************************************************


Bizarre sightings in Dundee leave witnesses baffled!
Name :Eye-witness names witheld by request.
date: : 27th and 28th January 1999
location: : Dundee
time : 18:20hrs GMT (27th) and 08:40hrs GMT (28th)

Case Researchers: Thanks to Mr Allan Robertson for bringing this
case to our attention and also to UFO Scotland researcher
Jeannie McKay for the follow up work.


Sighting Submission:

Dear Sirs, I have been asked to forward this UFO sighting report
to you by someone who knows of my interest in the subject, but
who wishes, at present, to remain anonymous. I have typed up
this report from hand-written notes that the person has given to
me. The reason he wishes anonymity stems mostly from the fact
that when it was reported locally,(to a local newspaper and our
local observatory) it was dismissed as a "star or maybe Venus"
that was seen, and this has caused some concern that only more
ridicule will result from further reporting of the sighting.

The person in question is an A.D.I.approved driving
instructor,and the incident has had a great effect on him. From
listening to his verbal account of this sighting it is apparent
that he would like to pass on this information to someone who
will take it seriously. With this in mind, I believe that should
someone wish to investigate this further, I think he would be
more than willing to discuss it more fully provided that any
contact was made via myself in the first instance. He does not
even want his family to know he has made this report as they are
so fearful of ridicule.

To perhaps assist with the 'geography' of the place names given
in the report, a few distances/ directions might help.  The
Fairmuir Park mentioned is about 2 miles north of the Tay and
the Thomson Street mentioned later is about half a mile north of
the Tay. Dundee's small airport's traffic consists mostly of
small private aircraft which are very familiar to locals.Also, a
few miles away in Fife, is the R.A.F. base at Leuchars, so that
military aircraft are also a common sight crossing Dundee. This
fact makes the observers reaction to being unable to identify
what he saw all the more strange.

        --------------- (report follows)-----------------------

                       Dundee Report:

(Witness name witheld by request)

"Dear Sirs,

On Wednesday evening, 27th January 1999,during a driving lesson
with a 17 year old pupil, at approx. 6:20pm, I saw a black
diamond shaped UFO flying through the sky. It had no flashing
lights which you would see on any normal aircraft. The driving
lesson continued when approx. 20 - 25 minutes later we stopped
to do a Reverse Exercise at a local park known as Fairmuir Park.
I looked up in the sky to see if I could still see the UFO I had
seen earlier on. It was hovering high in the sky glowing like a
star. I recognised it as the UFO I had seen earlier because of
the shape. I got out of my car to look at it and after about 1
minute it rotated anti-clockwise and directly underneath there
was an orange coloured beam which came down from the UFO and
went back up again. At this point I shouted to my pupil to come
out of the car.

I could not see any lights nor could I here any sound. We were
both standing in the park trying to find out what we were
looking at. We had never seen anything like it. About 2 - 3
minutes later it started moving off. We jumped into the car and
followed it for approx.10 minutes. It was glowing a brilliant
white/very light yellowish colour.

It was almost round in shape but a little oval in the centre
now. We could not believe what we were looking at, it was
definitely not from this world it was extra-terrestrial. We
watched it travelling through the sky  getting smaller and
smaller as it got further away. At this time it was bright white
just like a star. I watched it till it disappeared over the
River Tay and into the hills of Fife. The time was now approx
7pm.

I found out on the Friday (29th January), that without knowledge
of my sighting, that on the next day, Thursday 28th January, at
approx. 8:40am, a relative of mine with her 2 daughters were
travelling down Thomson Street, which overlooks the River Tay
and one of her children said there was a shooting star over the
Tay. It was hovering over the water with two yellow beams coming
from underneath. Then it started to rise vertically into the
sky. They lost sight of it because of a building obstructing
their view. They described it as shining like a star, very
bright white/ yellowish colour. After they could see the Tay
again the object had completely vanished. They had obviously
seen the same UFO as me.The two girls (13 yrs. and 9 yrs.)&
their mother all saw this as well as me and my pupil the night
before."

 --------(report end)-----------------------------------

P.S.
  There are, unfortunately, no photographs of this sighting, but
there are some rough drawings available. I reported this
sighting to a UFO magazine several weeks ago, but they have not
acknowledged it to date. This has made the person even more
anxious that nobody is taking it seriously. With this in mind, I
hope that even if no follow up is required with this
incident,you will be able to at least e-mail me with some sort
of 'note' that I can pass on to the person concerned. I'm sure
that even this would go some way to easing his anxiety.

(Follow up E-mail interview by UFO Scotland Researcher Jeannie McKay):

The incident took place 6.20pm on Jan 27th.  The subject then saw a
black diamond UFO fly thru the sky.

1.  At that time of the year it is dark at that time.  How low was
    the UFO at that time?  At what approx. speed was it moving and
    in what direction?  How large was the craft?  What shape does the
    subject deem to be "diamond"?

Answer:
    In the direction he first seen it he could probably have observed
    the craft silhouetted against any remaining 'glow' in the western
sky.
    At that time he and his pupil (who was driving) were travelling
    west along a road about 2.5 miles north of the River Tay.
    The instructor saw the object in the general south/westerly
    direction. He estimates it was about 40 - 45 deg. above the local
    horizon and travelling in the general direction of the Sidlaw Hills
    ie. north. Although I tried to get him to estimate the craft's
speed/
    size/ altitude, he was not prepared to guess. All he would say was
    he reckoned the craft was probably about the same size as his thumb-
    nail at arms length. As this part of the sighting only lasted 5 - 8
    seconds and was from a moving car, during a driving lesson, I don't
    think he can say much more on this. As for the diamond shape, I cut
    out a piece of paper in the shape of the diamond he had drawn when
    he first told me about the incident (see attachment Fig. 1 from the
    first e-mail I sent) and he agreed this was the shape when he first
    saw it. He also said the craft was moving in the direction of it's
    shorter axis.


20- 25 minutes later Instructor and pupil see object again.  He
recognises that it is the same one seen earlier because of the shape.

2.  How low is the craft now and in what direction?

Answer:
    This part of the sighting was from the park which is about 2
    miles north of the Tay and about 1 mile east of the 1st sighting.
    He estimated that the craft was about 70 - 80 deg. above the local
    horizon in a west of south/west direction. At this time he estimated
    it was the same size as a pen, end on, held at arms length. Again
    he couldn't estimate size/altitude.

The craft was "glowing like a star".

3.  What colour was it glowing and how brightly?  Was the outline of
    craft clearly visible?

Answer:
    The outline of the craft was clearly visible. This was the
    reason he was able to recognise it when the car first stopped at
    the park and he looked around, from inside the car, to see if he
    could spot what he had seen earlier. When I asked him what colour
    it was and if it was very bright, he just said again that it was
    "like a star" but recognizable as the diamond and just hovering.

The craft rotated anti-clockwise.

4.  How many degrees did it rotate?  How fast did it rotate?

Answer:
    I'll try to find out about this.

Orange beam came down from UFO and went up again.

5.  How far down did orange beam come?  Was the craft hovering at the
    time?  What would have been underneath craft at time beam came
    down (approx.)?  Did craft appear to be searching for something?
    How fast did the beam go down and up?  Was the beam a single shaft
    of light?

Answer:
    (Again, see the e-mail attachment mentioned above, Fig. 3 for
    relative sizes).
    The craft was hovering at the time the "beam" was seen.
    As with size estimates etc., he compared the "beam" to being
    like the tail of a kite in length. The "beam" was described as
    "being like a row of Christmas lights coming on one after the other
    in sequence, first down from the craft, then back up towards it.
    The craft was hovering at this time, he estimates it was above the
    general area of the Dryburgh Estate in Dundee. He didn't recognise
    it as anything like a helicopter or even a "blimp" type airship.
    From his (animated!) description of the "beam" event, it seems to
    have lasted only a couple of seconds. I'll check on this.

Instructor followed the craft for ten minutes.

6.  Did he follow it in his car?  Or did he stand observing for 10
    minutes?

Answer:
     The instructor and the pupil followed the object in the car
     for about 10 minutes. They drove in a generally westerly direction
     along several roads until they ended up about 1.5 miles west of the
     park at which point they stopped as the object had, they estimated,
     passed over Invergowrie Bay and went into the distance over the
     hills of Fife.

It was then glowing a white/very light yellow

7.  Is the glow coming from the craft itself or is it a glowing field
    around the craft?  Was the glowing light pulsating?

Answer:
    His description was of the craft glowing but I'll check again
    on this and on the pulsating.

The UFO is almost round in shape  -  but a little oval in the centre
now.

8.  Would the Instructor say that the craft changed shape?  Or was he
    viewing from a different angle?

Answer:
    When questioned, he agreed that he could have been looking at
    the craft from a different angle.

9.  When the craft was last seen at what speed was it travelling?
    Was the UFO seen at the same height during the sighting?

Answer:
    Since the craft appears to have travelled from approx. above
    Dryburgh to the hills of Fife in a general south west direction
    which is about 10 - 11 miles in about 10 mins. the speed may have
    been 60 - 66 mph. As to height, it appears to have been relatively
    smaller above the park than it was when it was first seen. I'll
    have to check to see if it appeared to change altitude as it was
    flying away into the distance.


10. Not personally knowing the area, was the craft always travelling
    in the same direction (e.g when it rotated)?

Answer:
    When first seen, it appeared to be travelling  in a northerly
    direction. After the park part of the sighting, it appeared to
    move off in a general south/westerly direction. To clarify the
    park part of the sighting, it was observed hovering for about 1
    minute before the "beam" was seen, then the craft rotated and again
    remained hovering for about 2 - 3 minutes before it moved off in
    the south/westerly direction.


  Also, further to your mention of similar sightings, I noticed in the
current issue of UFO Magazine (May/June '99), that at the end of
February
in the Hull/Flamborough area, sightings of diamond shaped craft were
reported. I particularly note that close up observers reported
structured
diamond shaped craft, and observers probably too far away, reported
balls
of light.

I also noted from the copy of the report you sent me which you had
forwarded to Skywatch was headed "Fife" rather than Dundee. Will this
matter too much?
 Again I'll try to get more info on the childrens sighting the following
morning, but this appears to have been of short duration. I don't know
the children personally and will see if the Instructor, who is their
uncle, is willing to ask a few more questions of them.

(Further E-mail Follow-up):

The craft rotated anti-clockwise.

How many degrees did it rotate? How fast did it rotate?

Answer:
       It rotated a full 360 deg. and this took about 5 -6
       seconds.

Orange beam came down from UFO and went up again.

How far did orange beam come? What would have been underneath
craft at time beam came down? How fast did the beam go down
and up?

Answer:
       It did not come down to the ground, it only came down
       about a hand length on an outstretched arm. The
       instructor was also a little unhappy about saying that
       it seemed to be hovering above Dryburgh Estate as he
       said that not knowing it's altitude or size, this made
       it difficult to say where it was hovering. The beam
       took about 2 - 3 secs to come down, paused for about
       2 - 3 secs and then again, 2 - 3 secs to go back up.

It was glowing a white/very light yellow.

Is the glow coming from the craft itself or is it a glowing
field around the craft? Was the glowing light pulsating?

Answer:
       It was the craft itself that was glowing, and the
       glowing light was not pulsating.

Was the UFO seen at the same height during the sighting?

Answer:
       As it moved across Invergowrie Bay towards Fife, it may
       have started to gain altitude.


I hope that helps to clarify these points. The instructor also
has some more details now from the childrens sighting.


(Further E-mail follow-up):

I'll try to give you the best
information I can about the children's sighting that I've
been able to gather from the Instructor during three or four
visits from him.

I'll include with this e-mail a couple of scans I've made from
drawings the chidren made within a short time of their sighting.
The scans (Figs 5 & 6) on the original report I sent you were
the instructors interpretation of the drawings that the children
had shown him. (You will note that the 9 year old refused to
colour in her 'object' as she insisted that she didn't have a
colouring pen of exactly the right colour so she would rather
leave it blank!)

I think that I should also mention a little about Thomson Street
where the sighting took place. As mentioned, the top of this
street is very approx. half a mile from the Tay and exits at
the bottom onto Magdalen Yard Road almost directly opposite the
northern end of the Tay Rail Bridge. Thomson Street is very
narrow with quite a steep slope down towards the river. There
are usually cars parked half on the pavement, half on the road,
leaving hardly enough room for a car to pass. There are buildings
on either side of the street making the view of the river quite
restricted to the sides.

The report...

At approx. 08:40 am on Thursday 28th January, the two girls and
their mother, after having collected their car from a lock up
near the top of Thomson Street, were driving down this street
when the the youngest child said that there was "a shooting
star" in the sky above the river. When her older sister looked
at it she said it wasn't a shooting star but a comet, "because
it had a tail". It had two yellow beams coming from underneath
it. It started to rise vertically into the sky. Their view was
retricted because buildings were obscuring their view. They said
it was shining like a star, a very bright white/yellowish colour.
The mother saw the object as well.
After they turned into Magdalen Yard Road and had a clear view
of the river, the object had vanished.(One of the children later
said to her father that they had seen a UFO because it was going
up vertically and she knew that "aeroplanes couldn't do that!")

I got the Instructor to ask the girls and their mother some
questions.....


1..... How long did the sighting last?

Answer: About 5 minutes.

2..... Who saw it first?

Answer: The younger girl.
(My comment: I note that she was the one who drew the craft as an
        almost round object, whereas her sister drew a shaped object.)

3..... Were you in the back of the car?

Answer: Yes.

4..... Which window did you see it through (ie in which direction)?

Answer: Front and side.
(My comment: This would have them looking in the general direction
        of the railway bridge.)

5..... How high was it (ie if you were pointing at it, how high
       would your arm be)?

Answer: Shoulder level.
(My comment: This would put the object probably at a fairly low height
        ie. straight ahead)

6..... What size was it ( like a penny, 10 pence, 50 pence or
       whatever held at arms length)?

Answer: A football.

7..... Did you all see it hovering?

Answer: No.
(My comment: This again may explain why the youngest girl drew an
        almost round object. She did see it hovering.)

8..... Did the air around the object glow or was it just the object
       which glowed? Did the light pulse?

Answer: The bottom of the object glowed.
(My comment: There was no answer to the pulsing question.)

9..... When it moved off vertically, did it shoot off very fast or
       did it move slowly.

Answer: Slowly at first, then vanished quickly.

10.... Did you hear any sound?

Answer: No.

11.... Do you think it was directly above the river?

Answer: Yes.

12.... Could you see the river at the same time as you seen the
       object.

Answer: Yes.

13.... Anything else you remember?

Answer: No.

End of report.

I hope that this helps with this sighting. I don't know if I'll
be able to get any more from the children. At the time this
sighting took place, the road along the north shore of the river
past the railway bridge is very busy. It would be very strange
if nobody else seen this thing........ Anyhow I look forward to
seeing the report on your web site. I'll show it to the
instructor, he'll be very satisfied.

Many thanks to Allan Robertson and Jeannie McKay for their work
and excellent research into this delicate case.

****************************************************************

Bizarre Flying Disc Over Scotland Shakes Witnesses
Source:  The Dundee Evening Telegraph - Scotland
Thanks to:  Gerry Lovell <ed@farshore.force9.co.uk>
Date: March 13th 1999


An unidentified flying object sighted in the Angus skies near
Carnoustie this morning has left a number of people mystified.

One Carnoustie resident, who wishes to remain anonymous, said he
had been fairly sceptical about such things, but wanted an
explanation for what he saw.

He and several members of his family, along with a Forfar
couple, saw a strange red disc moving about the sky between
6.30am and 6.55am this morning.

Neither the Coastguard nor members of staff at RAF Leuchars
could shed any light on the sighting.

The man said that the object, which moved about the sky, was
"like nothing I've ever seen before except on the film
Armageddon".

"I was out walking the dog with my wife and child near the black
slab car park this morning," he said.

"We saw this red oblong shape in the sky, and it couldn't have
been the moon or the sun because of the way it was moving. It
then just disappeared.

"A car drew up and the man inside asked us if we'd seen it and
we said yes.

"Distressed"

"The man in the car said he was from Forfar and had seen the
light earlier, and we could see he was visibly distressed."

The family continued their walk along the beach and the object
reappeared at about 6.55am.

"I'm neither a believer nor a non-believer in UFOs, but this
time it had changed from bright red to orange, and it was much
bigger," he continued.

"Anybody looking at the sky would have seen it - it was that big
you couldn't miss it."

A member of the Fife Coastguard said there had been no reports
of flares or other lights.

"It's been fairly misty this morning, and there is no meteorite
activity as far as I know," he said.

A spokesman at RAF Leuchars discounted any official aerial
activity by personnel from the Fife airbase.

"I know of no operations in the area by any of our flights," he
said.

So it seems the strange red object will have to remain a mystery
for the time being.

****************************************************************

UFOs sighted in Morayshire in Scotland (North East)
Name : Heidi and Iain Sands  <SAMBO@SANDSI.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Date: : 18th May 1999
Location: : Braehead,Elchies,Craigellachie,Aberlour,MORAY
Time : between 12.20am and 1.04am

Eye-witness sighting report : Together myself and my husband
watched two UFO`s,hanging in the night sky.One was much further
away than the other.The sky was very clear and we heard no
noise.

They were in the direction of Burghead/Kinloss from our
home.They were moving from side to side and up and down,and
appeared to be saucer shape,sometimes tipping to show the top or
the bottom at other times,eliptical,very bright light at one end
and something akin to a power source or surge at the other end.

In total we watched them with binoculars and the naked eye for
over half an hour.When they moved to go they went very quickly
away from us.

I would be interested to hear if anyone else sighted what we
did.For the record this is my (Heidi Sands) second sighting.On
New Years eve twenty years ago, I saw exactly the same
thing,albeit only one UFO,in Lancashire outside Salwick Automic
Energy plant.I was not alone at the time,and there were many
reports the following day in the press about similar! sightings.

Please let me know if anyone else saw the same UFO over
Burghead/Kinloss as we did.

Thank you.

****************************************************************



Subject: More unusual sightings near Aberdeen area on East Coast of
Scotland.
Date: Sat, 22nd May 1999
Time: 23:30 approx
Source: Thanks to UFO Scotland researcher "Richard Gall"
<MIB@cyborg.force9.co.uk>


Tonight, while I was out walking my dog I witnessed the best
'unknown' in the sky that I have ever seen.  Every night when I
walk the dog I usually spend more time looking up than where I'm
going when the sky is clear. Tonight the sky was relatively
clear with scattered clouds.

Just as I finished the walk and was in my garden I noticed a
very bright object in the sky. I assumed it to be a star until I
realised it was moving. Secondly, I thought it was a perception
error, considering the clouds were moving, I wondered whether or
not the movement was 'illusional' as is often the case.

However this was not the case, this very intense white object,
larger(brighter) than any star in the sky was obviously very
high up, absolutely silent, yet moved across the sky at a good
rate. I estimate the sighting lasted about 3 - 4 minutes.

When I first noticed the object it was about 30 degrees above
the horizon directly to the south. As the sighting proceeded,
the object moved north then gradually turned and headed out to
the north east where I eventually lost it behind a thick cloud
layer. I did proceed to walk down the hill where there are less
lights to see if I could relocate it however this was not the
case.

There were no indications of any anticollision beacons or noise
to indicate that this was a conventional aircraft. Besides, even
if it was a conventional aircraft, if it was high enough that no
engine noise could be heard, there is no way it could travel the
distance it did in the time it did.  I must also emphasise how
'intense' the light appeared.

I would be interested in hearing about any other such cases in
Scotland right now. Chances are if I seen it, many people from a
wide radius around did too.  Since it came up from the south,
perhaps some of you down near Fife seen similar object(s)
tonight?

***********************************************************************

==================================================================
If you see someone without a smile......give them one of yours :)
******************************************************************
Posted by: Dave Ledger  (mailto:UFOSCOT@cableinet.co.uk)
VISIT "UFO SCOTLAND" AT:
http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger/index.htm
ICQ pager      http://wwp.mirabilis.com/4851425
******************************************************************
THE TRUTH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER!..................BUT HOW FAR?
==================================================================
"The sands of time are trickling away from our dear mother Earth
 and yet we continue to fight amongst ourselves and destroy our
natural enviroment,leaving all the mess for our children and their
children's children to inherit when we're gone."





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                      Nick Popes Weird World - June '99

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 18:20:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:40:23 -0400
Subject: Nick Popes Weird World - June '99

Hot Gossip UK June'99

Nick Pope's Weird World

Welcome to the June column, and the latest news and gossip from the
weird and wacky world of UFOs, alien abductions and the paranormal.
____________________________________________________

Alien Big Cat Sightings
The Beast of Bodmin, the Beast of Exmoor, the Surrey Puma. There have
been a steady stream of big cat sightings over the years, and some new
ones have just come to light from Devon. The term "Alien Big Cat", by
the way, doesn't mean they're supposed to be extraterrestrial, and is
simply a reference to the fact that if they're seen in the UK, this is
"alien" to what's judged to be their usual habitats. These sightings
are of interest to ufologists because it may have a bearing on animal
mutilations. I kept an eye on these stories while investigating UFOs
for the Government, and made some low key enquiries with the Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. These new sightings occurred on
5th May, one in Harford and one in Wrangaton. As it happens, my
brother lives in Wrangaton, so I telephoned him, to see if he could
put me in touch with the witness. Well, Forteans among you can guess
the rest; he was the witness! He told me that he was just
putting the chickens away, when he saw a large, tan-coloured animal
standing in the road. He described it to me as being "around three or
four feet high, and five or six feet long". He told me that "I looked
at it, and it looked at me, and then it turned and went". He admitted
that he didn't know enough about big cats to say whether he thought it
was a lioness, a panther, a puma or a lynx, but I'll be getting a more
detailed account from him, and will keep you posted.
____________________________________________________

Crop Circle Study
Many of the national newspapers carried the story of how the American
millionaire Laurance Rockefeller is to fund an in-depth research
project into the crop circle phenomenon. The study will be
co-ordinated by Colin Andrews, who already has a computer database of
over 10,000 formations from all around the world. Much of the money is
likely to be spent on hiring aircraft so that more aerial photographs
of formations can be taken. It certainly looks like being an
interesting summer, down Wiltshire way.
____________________________________________________

New UFO Videos
UFO Magazine have an exclusive deal to market videos of five
intriguing programmes made by Transmedia Productions, and shown
recently on Discovery channel. The programmes include one on animal
mutilations, one on alien abductions and one on mind control. Details
can be found on page 41 of the current (May/June) edition of UFO
Magazine. These videos won't be available in the shops until later
this year.
____________________________________________________

Global Abductions
I've often tried to highlight the fact that reports of alien
abductions come from a wider range of countries than Britain and
America. To prove my point, I have four new cases that have come my
way in the last couple of weeks. Two were from Britain, but one was
from Australia and the other from Norway.
____________________________________________________

Traitors On The Net
In the aftermath of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, and the recent nail
bomb attacks in London, the extreme right have been subjected to more
scrutiny than usual. Coincidentally, British ufology's resident Nazi
has been keeping a low profile. However, he's now resurfaced, and in a
move of breathtaking stupidity decided it would be clever to circulate
the list of alleged MI6 agents that appeared on the Internet recently.
Sorry, but there's nothing clever about treason, or about putting
people's lives at stake to satisfy your own ego.
____________________________________________________

Space Debate
On 4th May the House of Commons was the scene of a rare parliamentary
debate on space issues. Billed as a debate on satellite
communications, it widened out into a more general discussion. Topics
raised included concerns over the militarisation of space, and the
potential for "cyberwar", including vulnerability of military
satellites to hacking. It's not often that such issues are aired, and
it's an intriguing sign of the times when they are. There has already
been a debate on the threat from comets and asteroids.
____________________________________________________

World Wide Whinge
I received a highly entertaining e-whinge from Andy Roberts recently,
after I dared to question his commitment to witness confidentiality,
and indeed to ufology. And yet, he makes my own case for me when he
haughtily advises me "Don't listen to what ufologists say - they know
squat!". He goes on to freely admit that he and Tim Matthews/Hepple
laughed at an abductee while at a TV show. Andy told me "&Mac183; we
both openly jeered at an abductee. So what? Both their stories (sic)
were funny and without any foundation in reality". Giving me his
perspective on the Independent UFO Network (IUN), he promises " a
surrealist, chaotic, non-organisation &Mac183;". As it happened, we
didn't have long to wait before we were treated to an example of
Andy's radical, new approach to ufology: he was due to write an
article for UFO Magazine about the Berwyn Mountain case, but has
decided he can't talk about the case for now, as he's got a book
coming out: It's all in the book! Read my book! Radical stuff, Andy!
We've never heard that sort of thing before in ufology! He's not a bad
chap, but it seems to me that he's far more interested in
point-scoring than in ufology. Still, if all his e-rants are as
hilarious as his last one &Mac183; keep 'em coming!
____________________________________________________

Positive UFO Encounters
In my last column in featured a company that specialised in material
relating to positive alien encounters, and gave details of the
website. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the site was up and running
at the time. Anyone interested in a more New Age interpretation of
alien contact should now be able to access this site, at
www.pleiadianlight.net. Alternatively, write to them at Dolphin Ray
Productions, PO Box 32, Launceston, Cornwall, PL16 0YF.
____________________________________________________

The Unopened Files
The new edition of The Unopened Files is out now, and available from
all good newsagents. This fascinating magazine started off as a
spin-off from UFO Magazine - it's edited by Mark Birdsall - but is now
well-established in its own right, and is published Quarterly. As well
as material on UFOs, it features articles on the Millennium Bug, BSE,
biological warfare, cults, cover-ups, conspiracies and lots more. It's
well worth checking out.
____________________________________________________

Peer Pressure
Dr John Mack, Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is
well-known for his view that the alien abduction phenomenon is worthy
of serious study. This was a central theme in his book, Abduction, and
it is a message that he continues to press home through the group that
he set up to study abduction reports. The Program for Extraordinary
Experience Research (PEER) produces a regular newsletter, PEER
Perspectives, and has a website at www.peer-mack.org. Alternatively,
snail mail them at PEER, PO Box 398080, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
There is essential information here for all serious researchers into
alien abductions.
____________________________________________________

Ed's Note:

Nick Pope's books, The Uninvited and Open Skies, Closed Minds, are
available from all good bookshops, in paperback. His publishers in
Britain are Simon & Schuster. The Uninvited is available in the US,
published by The Overlook Press, who plan to publish Open Skies,
Closed Minds later this year. Nick's debut novel, Operation Thunder
Child, will be published in October by Simon & Schuster Ltd.
____________________________________________________

Posted by Georgina Bruni
Georgina Bruni - Editor in Chief Hot Gossip UK
& check out Bruni's Column ufocity.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
E-mail: georgina@easynet.co.uk
E-mail: 104707.336@compuserve.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HOT GOSSIP UK
www.hotgossip.co.uk
Celebrating three years on the World Wide Web
Britain's first on-line Gossip Magazine
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 3

                       Re: *U* Map: North America 1947

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:01:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 06:37:38 -0400
Subject: Re: *U* Map: North America 1947


>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 02:18:54 -0700
>Fwd Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:35:07 -0400
>Subject: *U* Map: North America 1947

<snip>

>http://www.jps.net/larryhat/NAM47.html

<snip>

>I hope you all have some time to look around the website. It
>took 15 years to gather the data.

Larry and Everyone:

You should really be commended for this effort, which provides a
continuing, public record of this information.  Your site
provides a lot of food for thought.  For a number of pages that
I looked at some thoughts come to mind relative to your
analyses:


Venus-Earth Sidereal Proximity.

For some 16,800 UFO sightings with known dates, the Heliocentric
Longitude of Earth and Venus are compared.

The DIFFERENCE between these longitudes is divided into 24
"zones" of 15 degrees each.   Earth and Venus are closest in
zone 12 ( yellow bar ).   Sightings >that occur at these times
increment the height of the bar. "Zone zero" sightings >occur
when they are on opposite sides of the sun.

The influence of Venus is diminished in zone 12, probably lost
in the Sun's glare.

Mars - Earth Sidereal Proximity.

For some 16,800 UFO sightings with known dates, the Heliocentric
Longitude of Earth and Mars are compared.

The DIFFERENCE between these longitudes is divided into 24
"zones" of 15 degrees each.   In "zone 12" Earth and Mars are on
the same side of the Sun, as close as they get for any given
orbit.  Zone zero sightings occur when Mars and Earth are on
opposite sides of the sun.

While Venus is often blamed for low quality sightings, It would
seem that Mars correlates much better using a filtered database.

I agree, but the the reason for the closer correlation of Mars
probably has to do with its longer visibility to an Earth
observer.  Mars, an outer planet, is best seen which it is at
opposition, or opposite to the Sun, when it is closest to Earth,
and hence brightest.  Since it is 180 degrees away from the Sun
it rises in the East when the Sun sets, is highest due South at
midnight, and sets at dawn.  In other words, it is up all night
and can be observed by all observers who are outside.

Venus, on the other hand, is visible either in the evening or
morning, but never all night.  Also, Venus, an inner planet, is
closest to Earth when in Conjunction, or nearest to the Sun,
but this is not, as you point out, its best visibility.  This
occurs  from the time that Venus is at Greatest Elongation
(about 45 degrees away) East of the Sun in the evening, or
Greatest Elongations West, in the morning, until the time of
greatest brilliance some weeks later, when it is closer to us
and the Sun, and presents a large, thin, but brilliantly
illuminated crescent.  Greatest elongations occur about 10 weeks
on either side of close approach to the Earth, and greatest
brilliancy  is about five weeks on either side.  For example,
this coming week, on June 10, Venus will be at Greatest Eastern
Elongation, easily noticed 30 degrees above the horizon at
sunset and will set 3 hours after the Sun, at about 11:30 P.M.,
Daylight Saving Time.

The giveaway for this Observers Effect is that more UFO reports
occur at the _evening_ Eastern Elongations, not at the less well
noticed morning Western Elongations, on the right of your
12-hour band.

Sidereal Sightings Histogram.

For any given date, time and place, some part of the zodiac is
directly overhead.

Astronomers divide the sky into hours of Right Ascension
(R.A.). By convention, the >Vernal Equinox in Pisces is
considered "zero hours" R.A. This display divides the sky into
24 hours (R.A.) with UFO sightings counts for each hour.

There is a notable rise between 20 and 21 hours R.A., when
Capricorn is overhead. Oddly, this points toward the galactic
center.

I have no ready explanation for this surprising effect

The galactic center is not in Capricorn, it is at 17H 45.7m
Right Ascension,  -29 deg Declination, two Zodiacal signs to the
west, in Scorpio.  Also, Capricorn is never overhead but is
actually more than 100 degrees away from the zenith.  I think
that you meant that is appears highest in the sky, or due south
at midnight.

But, again, for this peak of reports I suggest an Observer
Effect.  The jump in sightings you point to undoubtedly comes
from reports in early August, during the summer months when
folks are outdoors and when it gets dark by 9 P.M.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 3

                  Re: Nick Pope On 'The Sheffield Incident'

From: Max Burns <AlienHype@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:11:35 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 06:42:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Nick Pope On 'The Sheffield Incident'


In a message dated 5/31/99 6:43:32 PM GMT Daylight Time,
updates@globalserve.net writes:

Subj: UFO UpDate: Nick Pope On 'The Sheffield Incident'
Date: 5/31/99 6:43:32 PM GMT Daylight Time
From: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto)


Snipped it all,

Phew thanks Nick for offering support for something
you all ready acknowledged that you knew nothing about.

Strange comment from a man who is in no position to
make any comment by his own statements.=E2=80=A6

Phew me wonders how The pope sleeps at night

"In the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost amen".

(((((Hey Folks))))

This Saturday June 5th The Bufora summer lectures

Be there, here the facts that others wish you not to hear.
Hey Popey turn up and here some facts, then you would
be in a position to make a comment from a more
informed position..

Instead of propaganda........Phew

I forgive you in the nane of the father the son and
the holy POPE

Max Burns Lecture
The Sheffield Incident
******************************************************
Banner Slide: The Sheffield Incident

Ladies & gentlemen, good afternoon and welcome
to the Bufora London Summer '99 lectures. My
Name is Max Burns, and today I am going to talk
to you about my investigation into the Sheffield Flying
triangle incident which occurred on the night of
March 24th 1997, over the peak district to the
west of Sheffield.

Today's lecture is the culmination of my own
twenty-seven month investigation into the incident.
My presentation today will be in three parts:

PART I:
       A presentation of my investigation into case

PART II:
       A comparative look at some of the claims
and counter claims that have been made wherein
I will show the irregularities of the claims of other
researchers.

PART III:
       A questions and answer period during
which I will be pleased to answer all your questions
about the incident. I do request that you hold all of
your questions until the question and answer section,
so that the presentation will flow smoothly as there
is a lot of information to digest today

My research has been the topic of some very
heated debate and argument on both the Internet
and in various other forms of media publication
with claim and counter claim, allegations of
fabricating of evidence, and counter allegations
of complicity in a conspiracy to conceal evidence.
I ask you to put aside what you have been
told or have  heard through the rumor and whisper
channels of ufology and listen and review my
material with an open mind.

I  would like to thank Malcolm Robinson &
the Council of Bufora for allowing me to be
here today, and I would like to thank you all
for taking the time to come and  listen to what
I have to say.  I hope that you enjoy my
presentation.

And on that note, welcome.

Please attend if not make comment like The pope
he allready said he knows not much about the case.

On that level, my granny said im right, she is blind and
deaf.

Perhaps the pope could help her regain her vision?

Max Burns






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 3

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 06:55:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>The Eastonian Times-Picayune is back, starting off with the
>usual bird-brained theories about the original Kenneth Arnold
>sighting.  Bruce Maccabee, myself, and others argued ourselves
>blue in the face with all sorts of mathematical and other
>arguments why birds couldn't possibly work  (can birds outfly a
>plane?).  A lot of good it did.  Don't get me started.


Why don't we get you started?  Did it ever occur to you (and
Maccabee) that your mathematical arguments and analysis of the
Arnold case are only right if you assume Arnold was absolutely
incapable of human error? But what if he was wrong? What if, for
example, he saw another flight of some 20-25 objects not too
long after his original sighting which certainly sound like
birds to most of us? What if he went on to report seven UFO
sightings total? What if he eventually concluded that UFOs are
space animals -- "living organisms...in the atmosphere"?

See Clark's "The UFO Book," p. 62.

Would this lead you to conclude that you had something
approaching a fruitcake on your hands, or would you prefer to
conclude that a living organism crashed at Roswell?

You treat the Roswell case and its witnesses in the same
fashion. When they support your argument, such witnesses as
Proctor et al are absolutely accurate and inviolable in their
recall, never mind interviewed 30 and 40 years after the fact.
When they don't -- as in the case of Kent Lorenzo, first
interviewed by Friedman in 1992, but never conveniently
mentioned since -- they must be, what, part of the ongoing cover
up?

Don't get me started.

You, Maccabee and others can mathematically analyze Arnold's
original statements all you want, or until Hell freezes over,
whichever comes first. And it doesn't mean a goddam thing unless
you think he was absolutely dead on and incapable of any error
in perception whatever.

Now explain how Miracle Man, i.e., Arnold, came to believe that
UFOs were living organisms.

Troubling, isn't it?

Unless you're the editor of the Rudiak Real Times-Picaynue.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 3

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:46:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 06:58:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: updates@globalserve.net

<snip>

> Don't get me started.

<snip>

>David Rudiak

Getting you started isn't the problem, believe me.

Now that you are, however, perhaps you would be so kind as to
answer the following questions, based on your own mathematical
analysis of same (And please feel free to call on Maccabee or
others as required. Hell, if you want, you can even refer to
Arnold.):

1) How many non-Mogul alien UFOs crashed at or near Roswell in
the summer of 1947?

2) Where and when?

3) How many bodies were recovered?

4) Where were they sent? Did they pass through Roswell?

5) What cover up and investigative organization resulted as a
consequence?

6) If MJ-12, please supply proof. If not MJ-12, please supply proof.

7) Does that mean that you support those MJ-12 documents that
have surfaced or not?

8) How much of the Corso/Birnes book is true?

Sorry to have got you started. But trust you can finish.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 3

                 Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:12:07 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 06:45:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?


>Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 21:05:52 -0700
>From: Kim Burrafato <lensman@stardrive.org>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?

>I've been wondering how long it would take for biological trace
>evidence like this to show up.  The fact that the hair is of an
>extremely rare human line -- Chinese mongoloid -- and blonde to
>boot -- is intriguing.  But it's not definitive proof of
>extraterrestrial origin.  My question to those well versed in
>molecular genetics, is what would constitute DNA that could be
>generally regarded as being of non-terrestrial origin?  How
>different would it have to be from the DNA of the simplest
>terrestrial organism in order to be defined as "ET DNA"?


This is an interesting question. For the annoying reason that it
cannot be answered, since nobody knows what ET DNA looks like.
I guess this is a catch-22 situation. If the DNA resembles human
DNA too much, it is human DNA. If the DNA differs too much from
human DNA, it might be the DNA of an unknown animal. So either
way it is not proof of ET.

Organized science will treat the DNA as it treats other sorts of
evidence. If people see a UFO it isn't proof of anything. If a
UFO is photographed it can be anything but an extraterrestrial
object. When thousands of people report visiting entities it
isn't proof of anything. When UFO's leave 4,000 traces on the
ground the data are ignored. When you have a radar- visual case
it is still anything but a extraterrestrial object. When
fragments of a crashed UFO are found and analyzed the scientific
community ignores it. It will be the same with DNA.

The crux of the matter is what John Velez said on this forum a
few weeks ago. Humanity is simply not ready for accepting the
presence of intellingent non-human beings on earth, whether on
foot or in flying craft. Until that situation changes, and this
will be a slow process, the scientific establishment will not
take UFO's seriously, at least in public.


           __________________________________________
           /    Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes    \
                      Henny van der Pluijm
                      hvdp@worldonline.nl

                       Technology Pages
                http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp
             \______________________________________/





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 3

                     Re: (Skyopen) Lecture in Hong Kong

From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:12:48 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 07:20:48 -0400
Subject: Re: (Skyopen) Lecture in Hong Kong


Folks,

FYI, I received the following reply from Jean-Michel Mariojouls
after I sent a direct email requesting additional info about the
Hong Kong cases as mentioned in a previous message posted to UFO
Updates. If anyone on the list is familiar with a "flashing
dots phenomenon" as related to any UFO incident, crop circle
event, etc, you might want to contact Jean-Michel and compare
notes.

-Brian Cuthbertson



>>>>>From: Jean-Michel Mariojouls <jmexit@macau.ctm.net>
>>>>>To: Skywatch International list <skywatch@ltlb.com>
>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 11:32 AM
>>>>>Subject: Lecture in Hong Kong

>>>>>This is to inform you that I will participate to a lecture
>>>>>organized by the Hong Kong UFO Club at the Hong Kong Space
>>>>>Museum on Saturday 5th of June, between 6:00PM and 9:00PM.

>>>>>The global theme will be asian UFO cases and footages from
>>>>>Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong and Macau. I will
>>>>>introduce Skywatch International and present some cases and
>>>>>footages from Macau, included the strange phenomenon occuring
>>>>>here since 1996.

>>>>Perhaps you could summarize some of the cases you mention above
>>>>and post them to the UFO Updates mailing list for the benefit
>>>>of worldwide subscribers outside of Hong Kong?  I'm sure reports
>>>>from that area would be of interest.  Alternately, a web page
>>>>that discusses such cases would be of interest.

>>>>Thanks,

>>>>-Brian Cuthbertson

>>> Who are you?
>>> What is the UFO Updates mailing list?
>>> What is updates@globalserve.net?

>>> Thanks

>>> Jean-Michel Mariojouls
>>> Skywatch International China Director

>Brian Cuthbertson wrote:

>>I'm one of the subscribers to the UFO UpDates moderated
>>by Errol Bruce-Knapp of Toronto, Canada.  Personally, I'm
>>a software engineer and advanced amateur astronomer living
>>in Austin, Texas.

>>For more info on the UFO Updates email list, see the
>>following web page:

>>      http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/

>>Click on the "Rules & Policies" link there if you
>>are interested in subscribing.

>>Quite a number of UFO researchers subscribe to this
>>list, including such folks as Stanton Friedman,
>>Greg Sandow, Jenny Randles (UK), and others.
>>Likewise numbers of normal folk, like myself,
>>subscribe.

>>Hope this helps,
>>  -Brian

>From: JM <jmexit@macau.ctm.net>
>To: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>, skywatch@ltlb.com
>Subject: Re: (Skyopen) Lecture in Hong Kong

>Nice to meet you Brian!

>I always give new informations I have to the Skywatch mailing
>list, if not why the hell I would be China Director?!

>The Macau cases are already known to the long time Skywatch
>subscribers and others (as they have been reproduced in other
>Web sites at the time).

>The problem is that the most important case, the one I'm
>studying since 1996, is quite unusual and difficult to document.
>I recently started a collaboration with the Hong Kong UFO Club.
>Some new cases have been reported from some asian countries and
>they will be presented at the lecture. I will publicly present for
>the first time what I 'm calling: "the unidentified flashing dots
>phenomenon". A strange phenomenon on wich I can't find any
>reference in the UFO literature.

>I will surely report the result of the lecture to the Skywatch
>list. There is a Web page dedicated to my work but is waiting to
>be completed for a long time now. It will be done in two to three
>weeks time, including footages, photos, the Hong Kong lecture and
>much more.

>This is where:
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/6289/ufo.html
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/6289/sichina.html

>I will check UFO UpDates.

>Thanks

>Jean-Michel Mariojouls
>Skywatch International China Director and Field Investigator







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 3

             Re: 'Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO Experiencers'

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:19:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 08:03:11 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO Experiencers'


'ello all,

After my recent request for info regarding
electrophysiology/neurophysiology of experiencers, I
'coincidentally' recieved the Rhine Institute's latest issue of
The Journal of Parapsychology, which lists in its yearly
bibliography an article titled "Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO
Experiencers."

Authors are listed as Don and Moura (1997). Published in Journal
of Scientific Exploration, 11, pg 435-454. Although

I am now a member of the SSE, I don't have this issue onhand,
and wondered if anyone on this list might who would be willing
to send me a copy to aid in the literature review that I am
engaged in while I consider exploring this area further in an
experimental manner. If so, please contact me directly.

Many thanks,

Tim Brigham






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 3

                           Re: Dr. Leir's Recovery

From: Derrel Sims <derrel@holman.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:32:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 08:03:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Leir's Recovery


Dear friends, investigators and fellows in the UFO field:

A public plea is up on my site for Roger's financial and medical
help.

Thank you all for you attention and the help that has already
been directed to him from those of you who contacted me.  I
forwarded some of the information to MR. Avery and the rest I
ask you to send directly to Roger's office.

Additional info is at:

http://www.firstevidence.org/


The data is up on the site.  I am exhausted from all of this.
god bless everyone for helping Roger...please, please dont
forget to pray.  Money can never take the place of prayer. Got
to run.  I have 4 presentations this weekend I have got to get
ready for some of the best work I have ever presented.

God bless you all,

Derrel Sims, CM.Ht., R.H.A.
Chief of Investigations, Saber Enterprises
F.I.R.S.T., & H.U.F.O.N.
19934 Rising Star, Humble, Texas 77338
Resource Phone # 281 446 3005
Email: derrel@holman.net
Web Sites: www.FIRSTevidence.org &  www.ALIENHUNTER.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 3

                           UFOINFO Progress Report

From: John Hayes <jhayes@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 12:00:34 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 08:03:43 -0400
Subject: UFOINFO Progress Report


Dear Errol and List Members,

The server the UFOINFO site is on is now back online but I have
to wait until my new password has been installed for security
reasons.

The latest report suggests that all or most of the files have
been lost so a complete upload of the site will be necessary. As
there are around 800 pages and many images in use it will
probably take a few hours to complete.

Due to the cost of phone calls in the UK it means I will have to
wait until the weekend before this can be done.

My apology for the inconvenience.


John Hayes

jhayes@cableinet.co.uk
webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com
UFO Roundup:- http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/
Filer's Files:- http://ufoinfo.com/filer/
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences:-
        http://ufoinfo.com/ufoicq/






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                        Intruders Foundation Website

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:58:02 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:56:44 -0400
Subject: Intruders Foundation Website

Hi All,

For almost five years I have maintained the IF website and
attended to all of the contacts and correspondence that it
generated. It was a voluntary effort that required hours of my
time each day. I can no longer afford to dedicate so much of my
time without compensation. In short, I need to concentrate on
earning some $ so that my family does not have to pay the price
for my work with the public and on behalf of the experiencers.

Until further notice, the Intruders Foundation website will be
_offline_. Any correspondence for Budd or for IF should be sent
to:

IFCENTRAL@aol.com

I will not handle or forward _any_ correspondence that is sent
to my e-mail address intended for either Budd Hopkins or the
Intruders Foundation.

I will continue to moderate and maintain the Abduction
Information Center. Members can simply continue to access the
website and interactive e-mail list the same as always. However,
AIC will no longer be affilated with Budd or the Intruders
Foundation.

I have no idea who will pick up the work. For now, I am no
longer the webmaster for IF and I will no longer represent
either Budd or the Intruders Foundation in any way.

I hope this doesn't create an inconvenience for anyone.
It's just something I have to do for myself.

Regards,

John Velez, Webmaster AIC

________________________________________________
                                jvif@spacelab.net
INTRUDERS FOUNDATION/ABDUCTION INFORMATION CENTER
                            http://www.if-aic.com/
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
________________________________________________





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:29:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:56:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake
>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:28:46 +0100

>I have been following this debate with interest, as I trust has
>Paul Fuller.

Hi Jenny

At this point I should explain why we're particularly looking
for physical evidence found in crop formations. Myself and Sue
Addison run a UFO group in Hertfordshire, and in addition to our
own research we aim to replicate others research findings. For
example we have soil samples for the alleged landing site at
Capel Green, Rendlesham Forest which are currently undergoing a
full chemical analysis. We'll be comparing these to the findings
that Larry Warren and peter Robbins unearthed (pardon the pun
<g>).

Due to varying standards to the acceptance of evidence we feel
there is a gap in research which will either help prove physical
traces or disprove them as being bias. The group we run is split
over the possibilities of the

origin of crop circles, although you've probably guessed what my
view is <g>. Despite each individuals viewpoint we are all in
agreement to look objectively at any evidence without bias and
sieve out the relevant data from the irrelevant. For example,
we've seen photo's of exploded nodes, but these have all been
laid out on tables, and not whilst the crop is still in the
ground. Those that believe in the possibility of crop circles
being made by unknown forces agree that we can't rule out that
the crop may have been tampered with after it was taken from the
formations.

So far we have found that we step on the sceptics toes because
we are open minded, and we are just sceptics to those who have a
lower standard and accept anecdotal evidence. Anyway, I thought
it was time to clarify the need for the information.

>Paul and I have written three books on circles and
>been involved since before Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado even.
>We have spent a lot of time collating eyewitness accounts and
>both of us have interviewed some. Dozens of cases exist and you
>will find plenty in the l993 updated edition of our book 'Crop
>Circles: A Mystery Solved?'  (Robert Hale).

Strangely enough I have a just received copy of your book which
was our next port of call to extract physical evidence and
eyewitness accounts.

>In essence eyewitnesses describe glowing rotating dome shaped
>lights at night (often with electrical effects) and dark, grey,
>misty lens shapes in daytime (often generating electroststic
>fields).

Sounds interesting.

>One vital key is that we never found a single case where a
>witness saw a complex formation created. Nearly all eyewitnesses
>are to simple, single circles. Eyewitness cases date back a long
>time and we have examples from pre 20th century.

Well, I'll certainly have a read of the book and check out the
information on the eye witness formations.

If the only formations made by natural forces, or 'other' forces
are single circles, then this seems to negate the more complex
formations as mysterious messages from the aliens <g>






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:30:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:58:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

>I don't know who, if anyone, has any written reports, full or
>partial, from these four. I suppose Colin Andrews or other
>British crop-formation investigators would be the ones to
>contact on that.

Noye's book claimed that Andrews and Delgado ignored these
reports as they were daytime sightings, and they were trying to
prove that formations only appeared at night. So much for
objective research!

>No, I leave that up to the crop-circle experts. But my own
>opinion, after examining a stand of it that I didn't want to
>tromple, was that it would be a hopeless task to do an
>impressive hoax job on it.

Unfortunately research into crop circles and ufology in general
requires more than just opinion to establish the facts.

Given that a few of the oil-seed rape formations this year seem
to refer to the solar eclipse in August, do you think the aliens
are going to present themselves? Or what other meaning do you
think the formations have?

>The supposed "string" technique was first offered up by negative
>skeptics as a hoaxing technique because of the circular shapes
>of many of the earlier ones, before Colin dispelled that one.

I would assume that Colin took the fact that circle makers used
string too literally. He tried to flatten the crop with it,
rather than use it to guage the radius of the formation.

>Here's one for you to  ponder, since you have Noyes' (editor)
>_The Crop Circle Enigma_. Go to p. 22 of that book and you'll
>see diagrams made by Terence Meaden and Colin Andrews of the
>crop circle of 1 Aug. '86 at Headbourne Worthy, Hampshire. It
>was a two-layer system, with an underlayer swirled one way and
>an upper layer above it, covering it, swirled such that the lay
>of the stems was at right angles to that of the layer just
>underneath. The diagrams depict the direction of the respective
>swirls. The photograph of it is shown on p. 36 of _Circular
>Evidence_ by Delgado & Andrews.

Thanks, I'll definitely check that out.

>You won't find any crop-circle naysayer talking about this one,
>or speculating on how it could have been hoaxed, or trying to
>demonstrate how it might be hoaxed. That's because it's pretty
>mind-boggling just to wonder about. You have to imagine that
>somehow every other crop stem out of the many thousands was
>first bent over (without breaking the stems) in one direction of
>swirl while the remaining stems all around stood intact. Then,
>these intact stems were bent over with a swirl at right angles
>to the swirl given to the other stems.

Have you asked any circle makers how this could be done?

>Such tell-tale signs have been found most notably in other
>crops, with wheat receiving the most attention, I believe.

If those signs are to be taken seriously surely they should
appear in oil-seed rape as you claim they are alien made?

>They're the ones who don't
>want to mention or discuss Levingood's work, or that two-layer
>crop-circle system I mentioned above, or the braided systems, or
>the several cases where the stems were all bent over from one to
>several inches above the ground, or why, in thousands of cases
>of "genuine" crop formations, no hoaxers have been caught making
>them, etc.

I have seen Levengood's work being discussed on many ocassions.

I'll look into the lay of the crop, but I doubt there's anything
there that

couldn't be hoaxed.

You'll find that crop bent at different heights is just a
natural effect, I gather you saw the program 'Secrets of Crop
Circles'.

Can you name any crop circle maker that has been caught at all?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 99 08:26:28 PDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:01:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: updates@globalserve.net


>Why don't we get you started?  Did it ever occur to you (and
>Maccabee) that your mathematical arguments and analysis of the
>Arnold case are only right if you assume Arnold was absolutely
>incapable of human error? But what if he was wrong? What if, for
>example, he saw another flight of some 20-25 objects not too
>long after his original sighting which certainly sound like
>birds to most of us? What if he went on to report seven UFO
>sightings total? What if he eventually concluded that UFOs are
>space animals -- "living organisms...in the atmosphere"?

>See Clark's "The UFO Book," p. 62.

>Would this lead you to conclude that you had something
>approaching a fruitcake on your hands, or would you prefer to
>conclude that a living organism crashed at Roswell?

I'm at a loss to understand what Dennis is trying to say here.
The notion that UFOs may be living organisms -- "space animals"
-- long ago went out of fashion, but it was a view held (however
naively in retrospect) by a number of Ken Arnold's prominent
contemporaries. Even Project Sign personnel characterized it as
"one of the most intelligent theories we have received." The
eminently respectable Civilian Saucer Intelligence of New York
(Bloecher, Davis, Mebane) took the idea seriously, and it was
discussed in writings by a variety of other early UFO writers,
including Charles Fort, Desmond Leslie, M. K. Jessup, John
Philip Bessor, Curtis Fuller, Trevor James Constable, and Ivan
T. Sanderson.  Arnold picked up his ideas from notions current
in the late 1940s and 1950s.

For a full discussion of the theory and its history, see my The
UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp. 872-77.

Arnold was anything but a fruitcake, and I am startled and
depressed that Dennis would suggest as much on such flimsy --
well, actually, nonexistent -- evidence. This is revisionist
ufology at its worst.  I would have expected better of Dennis.

Jerry Clark







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                 Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:59:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:08:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?


>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:12:07 +0200 (MET DST)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?

>>Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 21:05:52 -0700
>>From: Kim Burrafato <lensman@stardrive.org>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Biological Evidence Of An Alien Entity?

>>I've been wondering how long it would take for biological trace
>>evidence like this to show up.  The fact that the hair is of an
>>extremely rare human line -- Chinese mongoloid -- and blonde to
>>boot -- is intriguing.  But it's not definitive proof of
>>extraterrestrial origin.  My question to those well versed in
>>molecular genetics, is what would constitute DNA that could be
>>generally regarded as being of non-terrestrial origin?  How
>>different would it have to be from the DNA of the simplest
>>terrestrial organism in order to be defined as "ET DNA"?

>This is an interesting question. For the annoying reason that it
>cannot be answered, since nobody knows what ET DNA looks like.
>I guess this is a catch-22 situation. If the DNA resembles human
>DNA too much, it is human DNA. If the DNA differs too much from
>human DNA, it might be the DNA of an unknown animal. So either
>way it is not proof of ET.

>Organized science will treat the DNA as it treats other sorts of
>evidence. If people see a UFO it isn't proof of anything. If a
>UFO is photographed it can be anything but an extraterrestrial
>object. When thousands of people report visiting entities it
>isn't proof of anything. When UFO's leave 4,000 traces on the
>ground the data are ignored. When you have a radar- visual case
>it is still anything but a extraterrestrial object. When
>fragments of a crashed UFO are found and analyzed the scientific
>community ignores it. It will be the same with DNA.

>The crux of the matter is what John Velez said on this forum a
>few weeks ago. Humanity is simply not ready for accepting the
>presence of intellingent non-human beings on earth, whether on
>foot or in flying craft. Until that situation changes, and this
>will be a slow process, the scientific establishment will not
>take UFO's seriously, at least in public.

This is the best, most succinct and honest revelation of the
facts of life regarding UFOs and the actions of their occupants
I've ever read.  Thank you, Sir.

However, and not wishing to speak for anyone else, some of the
fear expressed on this list related to when the time came for
the proof to be undeniable, and people are discovered to be
lizard spawn, or gray spawn ... or perhaps even gray poopspawn.
Sorry, I was unable to restrain myself.

The concern is that when discovery is made that, say I or Velez,
Art Bell or (God Forbid because it would really give the lizard
spawn race a black eye) Fill Class, were discovered to be such
offspring, that we would become the "Strange Fruit" hanging from
the Poplar tree Billy Holiday sang about. Frankly, despite the
fantastic Rimbaudian imagery, I don't like the view from a
poplar branch ... much like my brothers and sisters, most
likely.

But somehow, I just don't think that will happen.  Just my
opinion. If it is discovered that some of us are really alien
spawn, lizard spawn or otherwise, I tend to believe that we will
be preserved by the goobers in gubbamint and analyzed, poked,
prodded and sucked for body fluids more than the buggers (uh,
bugs) did to us.  No, I rather think we will be relatively safe,
albeit not free.  But then again, who is these days?  And
please, don't argue with me on this issue.  Anyone out there in
the ether think you're free?  Hee, hee.  Right!  And the check
is in the mail.  And, "Don't worry, sweetheart, I'm sterile!"
Uh huh.  Freedom no longer rings. It tried but no one heard it.
Like that Poplar tree falling in the forest ... where no one was
around to hear it fall?  Therefore it didn't? And where those
black bodies with bright spirits hung, in the south of our great
nation, and in the camps in Europe.... etc.  And continue to
hang, as there are better, more insidious ways to hang a man
without a rope or a poplar tree.

People have no idea what it is like to be in the position of
someone who has (what to that person, are "real") memories of
these events. Unless of course, you've been thru it.  It creates
a level of fear, which evolves over your lifetime, into either
terror or some benign "they are our saviors and they love us"
tripe.  Not only are experiencers saddled with the memories,
which are all too real to us, but the ancillary fears, phobias
and emotional issues too complex to verbalize here.  Some never
speak of it.  Some, idiots to a man, woman and child, are
unafraid to talk about it.  Many, like Velez, recommend keeping
it quiet.  I concur.  Because while I do not think the lynch
mobs will win, I think the goobers in gubbamint will. And I fear
them more than I fear my neighbors with ropes.  At least it's
over relatively quickly at the end of a rope.  But at the end of
the corridor, at the camps set up for us, it could be a lifetime
of terror, the memories of which will radiate into the universe
just like those who've suffered in other camps, at other times
thru-out our history.  Jerks that we are.

Which is why I continue to believe that to be an inebriant or a
nut is so cool.  Do you remember that old geezer in "Andromeda
Strain" who drank Sterno?  Sumbitch didn't die with the rest of
'em.  And the baby whose lungs saved it.

See the messages here?  No?  OK, let me tell you what the
messages are:

1) Don't drink Sterno, drink Gripple, it tastes better.
2) Weep.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 10:23:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:04:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:46:23 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

><snip>

>> Don't get me started.

><snip>

>>David Rudiak

>Getting you started isn't the problem, believe me.

>Now that you are, however, perhaps you would be so kind as to
>answer the following questions, based on your own mathematical
>analysis of same (And please feel free to call on Maccabee or
>others as required. Hell, if you want, you can even refer to
>Arnold.):

>1) How many non-Mogul alien UFOs crashed at or near Roswell in
>the summer of 1947?

>2) Where and when?

>3) How many bodies were recovered?

>4) Where were they sent? Did they pass through Roswell?

>5) What cover up and investigative organization resulted as a
>consequence?

>6) If MJ-12, please supply proof. If not MJ-12, please supply proof.

>7) Does that mean that you support those MJ-12 documents that
>have surfaced or not?

>8) How much of the Corso/Birnes book is true?

>Sorry to have got you started. But trust you can finish.

>Dennis Stacy

Dennis-

Have you really become so frustrated with the "genre" that you
have to resort to this type of posting?  The subjects you raise
have all been argued to death on this list (and others) and you
throw them out as bait to begin those arguements anew.  The
worst part of it is that you lump them all together, in spite of
the fact that the provenance of each is so vastly different,
which is a tactic used by CISCOP.

Personally, I'd rather be reading discussions about the issues
at hand, rather than discussions about the discussions.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                   The Prophets Conference - Port Townsend

From: prophets@maui.net
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 08:51:36 -1000
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:16:58 -0400
Subject: The Prophets Conference - Port Townsend


The Prophets Conference ~ Port Townsend, taking place the
weekend of August 27-29 in the idyllic and picturesque setting
of Port Townsend, Washington, is bringing together an
extraordinary group of visiting faculty to explore two main
themes: =93The UFO: Anomaly, Reality, Implications=94 and =93Evoking
the Numinous: A Path of Revelation, Evolution, Awakening.=94

One of the mind opening conference presenters is the =91erudite,
witty, and genuinely scary,=92 Robert Anton Wilson, who will be
joining Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Joe Firmage, Dr. Jack Sarfatti, Joan
Ocean, and Dr. Steven Greer on the UFO panel. Wilson will also
be presenting an individual teaching during this historic event
entitled, =93There=92s a Seeker Born Every Minute,=94 where he will
wax sarcastic (or witty) about both dogmatic Believers and
dogmatic Deniers. He will be joined during his presentation by
one of America=92s truly great and prophetic novelists, Tom
Robbins, a non-dogmatic person reportedly raised by wild dingoes
in the Australian outback.

Other presenters at the conference include Gregg Braden, Ilona
Selke, and James Twyman.

You will find full information on The Prophets Conference ~ Port
Townsend linked at http://www.greatmystery.org/prophets.html.

Looking forward to seeing you in August.

Cody

About Robert Anton Wilson

=93Dazzling=85the most thrilling tilt-a-whirls and daring
loop-o-planes on the midway of higher consciousness.=94
          -Tom Robbins=09

=93We=92ve needed this for a long time=85=94=09
                -Henry Miller, author of Tropic of Cancer

=93What great physicist hides behind the mask of Wilson?=94
                -New Scientist

=93One Of The Leading Thinkers Of The Modern Age=85=94=09
                -Barbara Marx Hubbard

(Excerpt from =93COSMIC TRIGGER III: My Life After Death=94
by Robert Anton Wilson=94)

FROM RUSSIA
WITH LOVE

In Which a Paper Rattlesnake Turns
Around and Bites Us in the Ass

Professor, you've got a bad case of Gogo on the Magogo.
-Spellbound

No ordinary tomato could do this, but-
-Attack of the Killer Tomatoes

On April 24, 1989, when glasnost had already come to bloom but
before the final break-up of the Soviet Union, a man named Ivan
Vesalova in Cherepovetsk saw or imagined a craft of enormous
size, bigger than any airplane, hovering about a thousand feet
above the ground.  Just another UFO sighting.  Nothing special.
We all know that Vesalova might have actually seen an airplane
distorted by lighting and weather, or a balloon, or a heat
inversion. Those of us open-minded enough-or mad enough, as you
will-to think he might have seen an alien spaceship do not need
to rush in haste to the True Believer position of changing
"might have seen" to a dogmatic and fervent "did see." We just
don't know, and most of us prefer to remain dubious about such a
case, where multiple earthly explanations seem quite likely.

On June 6, in Konantsevo, several children reported the landing
of a luminous sphere in a meadow. They saw, or hallucinated--,
as you will, a headless person climb out.  Then, like a special
effect in a sci-fi movie, both the craft and the headless ginkus
disappeared.  Just faded away...

Well, maybe the kids had smoked some decadent Capitalist weed.
Maybe they just wanted to hoax the grown-ups and invented it
all. Maybe...maybe...We do not get beyond "maybe" in cases like
this, unless we have a Dogma in mind and want to force the data
to fit it.

On June 11 in Volagda a woman reported a fiery sphere crossing
the sky, visibly for about seventeen minutes.

Maybe she saw a meteor.  Maybe she saw a space ship.  You decide
such maybes definitely only if you made up your mind long, long
ago that you would always decide them that way.

For several days in October that year, in the town of Voronezhan
industrial center of about one million inhabitants--scores of
witnesses reported landings of spherical craft.  They also
reported gigantic extraterrestrials (twelve to fourteen feet
high) who got out of the craft and went walking around the city
park.

They even saw or hallucinated several cases of seeming
"teleportations"--people who vanished from one place and then
re-appeared elsewhere.

The witnesses to all this weirdness did not number two or three,
who might have hatched a good hoax between them.  In most cases,
witnesses consisted of huge crowds.

Kind of makes me wonder.  George Lucas, as noted earlier, could
fake this on film, but I don't know of any existing technology
that would fake it in several parts of a "real," "solid" town.

The alleged extraterrestrial allegedly had three eyes, according
to some witnesses.  Others denied that and said the Visitors
(let's not assume we know what kind of space they came from) had
a strange bump in their foreheads that looked only a little bit
like a third eye.

Many of the sightings had very large crowds of witnesses.  For
instance, a woman who saw a red-yellow-green glove maneuvering
over her house called all her neighbors. Over 500 people later
agreed they had seen it--or 500+ people all starting
hallucinating at the same time, if you must dump the data
instead of thinking about it.

Several Soviet scientists investigated and failed to convince
themselves that all the reports derived from hallucination. They
frankly felt stumped, as they told American researcher Dr.
Jacques Vallee.

Just before Vallee finished interviewing the Russian
investigators--as he prepared to fly back to the United
States--one final report came from Voronezh. Another strange
craft had flown over a nuclear power plant, and sent a beam
toward the ground, which left a burn mark in the asphalt.

Witnesses described the craft, and garb of the giants who walked
around the park, as decorated with a curious symbol. Perhaps the
reader will recognize that symbol at this stage of our story.

)+(

The sign of UMMO... By now, this group art work, or hoax, or
whatever, must have cost its perpetrators about as much as a
Spielberg film.  What can inspire such spendthrift humor?

The 21st Century Mind: Opening to the Possible is the vision for
The Prophets Conference ~ Port Townsend.  This special gathering
continues the compelling adventure into sacred vision and the
realization of meaning.  The Prophets Conferences are
unparalleled events constantly manifesting the edge of ideas
which call for nothing less than the Re-envisioning and
Reconfiguration of Reality.

Port Townsend, Washington is a beautiful place on Puget Sound,
between Seattle and Vancouver, and is the perfect location for
the conference, for a powerful pilgrimage, and for an especially
enjoyable vacation. Lodging and camping at the Fort Worden State
Park Conference Site are inexpensive, comfortable, and quite
nice, and the surrounding scenery is breathtaking.

Full information is available at:
http://www.greatmystery.org/prophets.html.

You may request a brochure by calling toll-free 1-888-777-5981.

Thank you for forwarding this information to your various lists.
Questions, unsubscribe, subscribe, inquiries, comments, issues?
Send mail to Cody@greatmystery.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 17:57:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:21:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

<snip>

>Here's one for you to  ponder, since you have Noyes' (editor)
>_The Crop Circle Enigma_. Go to p. 22 of that book and you'll
>see diagrams made by Terence Meaden and Colin Andrews of the
>crop circle of 1 Aug. '86 at Headbourne Worthy, Hampshire. It
>was a two-layer system, with an underlayer swirled one way and
>an upper layer above it, covering it, swirled such that the lay
>of the stems was at right angles to that of the layer just
>underneath. The diagrams depict the direction of the respective
>swirls. The photograph of it is shown on p. 36 of _Circular
>Evidence_ by Delgado & Andrews.

Here's one for you to ponder.

In his own crop circle book, The Circles Effect and Its
Mysteries (1989), Meaden indeed viewed the Headbourne Worthy
circle as incapable of having been created by humans. He was
even so bold (or foolish, depending on your point of view) at
the time to state, "We may be sure that none of the 250 circles
personally examined by the author as background material for the
present survey has been man-made."

But only a few years later Meaden was on record as admitting
that, while many of the complex-geometry formations were
undoutedly hoaxes, some of the simple cirlces were still the
product of his previously unrecognized "plasma vortex." A year
or two later he was out of the "business" altogether.

One wonders why, doesn't one? But why not contact him and find
out? Ask him what he thinks of  the Headbourne Worthy formation
_now_.

<snip>

>Such tell-tale signs have been found most notably in other
>crops, with wheat receiving the most attention, I believe. You
>could write the BLT research team for more details on that.
>Recall that posting from Nancy Talbott I originally was trying
>to bring to your attention, with excerpt below:

>>Yes, control studies have been conducted; BLT has made circles
>>with feet, planks & rope,and cement rollers, then sampled the
>>crop as we normally do to look for the regularly-found plant
>>anomalies.

>>We did _not_ find (1) node elongation of the plant stems, (2)
>>expulsion cavities at the nodes of plant stems, (3) altered
>>redox ratios (measurements of mitochondrial respiration rates),
>>or (4) altered germination characteristics in the downed plants
>>when compared with controls taken elsewhere in the test fields.

>> Nancy Talbott
>> BLT Research,
>> Box 400127,
>> Cambridge, MA
>> 02140, USA.

>The "B" stands for John Burke, the "T" stands for Talbott, and
>the L for Dr. Wm. C. Levingood [sic], who did manage to get a paper or
>two (or more since 1994?) into the peer-reviewed literature on
>it, and in it he does describe some of the anomalies in detail.
>His paper is "Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants,"
>_Physiologia Plantarum_ 92 (1994), pp. 356-363.


For a balanced overview of the crop circle phenomenon, I can do
no better than to recommend an article by Montague Keen, "Keen
on Crop Circles," which appeared in The Anomalist 4 ($9.95 plus
$2.50 s/h from, and checks payable to, Dennis Stacy, PO Box
12434, San Antonio, TX 78212). For three years Keen served as
scientific adviser to the Centre for Crop Circle Studies.

Here's an interesting quote from Keen. "In order to use
artificially flattened pants as controls against which
differences in sample crops are measured, it is strictly
necessary not only to have a standard artificial flattening
procedure, using the same implements at the same velocities and
weights to flatten the crop, but to perform this operation at
the same time as the sampled formation is made -- otherwise the
crop may be at a different growth stage and exhibit all manner
of chemical and physiological differences. But this is
impossible. No-one knows where or when crop formations occur;
only when they are noticed. Such an objection may appear to push
methodology over the brink of pedantry, but this is an area
where we can afford to allow no rough edges." (pp. 52-53)

As for Levengood's much ballyhooed  measurements in the
diameters of minute pit holes in cell walls, I won't bore you
with the details, but Keen says, in essence, "it is doubtful
whether optical magnification could satisfactorily delineate
diameters to the level of accuracy required for the sort of
statistical calculations made by Levengood. There is a strong
subjective element here. It must cast serious doubt on the
reliability of measurements made and conclusions drawn." (p. 51)

There is much more in this important, intriguing article,
including the to date unanswered challenge made by hoaxer Rob
Irving to Levengood about Levengood's so-called "H-Glaze,"
described by Levengood and Burke as minute particles of iron
contained in the late-summer Perseid meteor shower [that] had
been drawn down from stratospheric heights by a plasma vortex.
"On entering the Earth's atmosphere," according to Keen's
interpretation of Levengood's and Burke's claims, "the heat had
generated microwaves of sufficient intensity to moltenise the
iron particles, some of which were found to be embedded in the
stalk running from the base upwards."

Irving claims he dusted the formation with iron samples obtained
from the chemistry department of one of the Oxford University
colleges -- and still has some, whenever Levengood wants to
compare his samples with his.

As for Levengood's 1994 "Physiologia Plantarum" article, Keen
has this to say: "This journal, the exclusive domain of plant
physiologists, makes no provision for correspondence or
contradiction, otherwise it might have been able to inform its
readers of my failure to find a single piece of supporting
evidence in the several footnoted citations."

Something else to ponder: Like Meaden, Keen was an early student
of the so-called crop circle phenomenon, who has since distanced
himself. I wonder why.

<snip>

>It's the other way around. There is a lot of conclusive evidence
>that the real crop-circle formations can't be hoaxed, because
>hoaxers can't reproduce any of the extremely important details.
>All they can do is make a pattern that, if they do it carefully,
>may look OK when photographed from an airplane. But that's good
>enough to satisfy those who don't want to admit that
>beyond-human intelligence is at work. They're the ones who don't
>want to mention or discuss Levingood's work, or that two-layer
>crop-circle system I mentioned above, or the braided systems, or
>the several cases where the stems were all bent over from one to
>several inches above the ground, or why, in thousands of cases
>of "genuine" crop formations, no hoaxers have been caught making
>them, etc.

>Jim Deardorff
>http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj


Your conclusive evidence is a lot less conclusive than you
think, Jim, as are your undervaluations of human ability and
ingenuity (and let's don't forget gullibility). You ought to
hang out with some hoaxers more and see how it's done. But you
probably wouldn't believe it if you saw it with your own eyes.

Dennis Stacy
http://www.anomalist.com





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 04:33:06 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:24:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


Regarding:

>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>What's my point here? When everything finally hit the ground,
>the parachutes would again collapse, some parts exposed to the
>sun, but other parts underneath shaded from the sun. If they
>were also composed of something like Brazel's "rather tough
>paper" to the point where they would resemble something like
>parchment, one would also expect only minor or maybe moderate
>shredding. The parachutes should remain relatively intact with
>uneven fading of color. Furthermore, somewhere in the mix of
>debris, there should also have been evidence of the twine lines
>and the structural metal rings.

>But nobody describes anything like that -- no metal rings, no
>twine, just lots of pieces of something parchment-like scattered
>about, described only as "brown" by Marcel and covered with
>purplish writing.


Metal rings and twine/string have been identified, as summarised
in the following:

Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 21:31:29 -0400
From: DRudiak <drudiak@AOL.COM>
Subject: Roswell Crash Materials Eyewitness Testimony

DESCRIPTIONS OF ROSWELL CRASH DEBRIS BY CIVILIAN AND MILITARY
WITNESSES

Compiled by David Rudiak

[.]

F&B: Stanton Friedman and Don Berliner, "Crash at Corona", 1991
SKEP July/August 1995 "Skeptical Inquirer"
USAF: United States Air Force Report on Roswell, Sept. 1994.

[.]

3. RIGID METAL, OTHER METAL:

[.]

BESSIE BRAZEL SCHREIBER
(F&B) " ...[There was also] a piece of something made out of the
same metal-like foil that looked like a pipe sleeve. About four
inches across and equally long, with a flange on one end."

CHARLES B. MOORE
(SKEP)  Moore says Flight 4 carried several 3-inch-diameter
aluminum rings for assisting with launching the balloon train, as
well as larger rings used to hold sonobuoys. (Moore claims this
is consistent with Schreiber's "pipe sleeve/flange" description
above).

(USAF) The material and a "black box" described by Cavitt, was,
in Moore's opinion, most probably from Flight 4, a "service
flight" that included a cylindrical metal sonobuoy and portions
of a weather instrument housed in a box, which was unlike typical
weather radiosondes which were made of cardboard.

[.]

6. FILAMENT-LIKE MATERIAL:

WILLIAM BRAZEL JR.;
(F&B) "[There was] something on the order of heavy-gauge
monofilament fishing line...The "string", I couldn't break it."

"[There was also] some threadlike material. It looked like silk,
but was not silk, a very strong material [without] strands or
fibers like silk would have. This was more like a wire, all one
piece or substance."

(B&M) "There was some thread-like material. It looked like silk
and there were several pieces of it. It was not large enough to
call string, but yet not so small as sewing thread either. To all
appearances it was silk, except that it wasn't silk. Whatever it
was, it too was a very strong material. You could take it in two
hands and try to snap it, but it wouldn't snap at all. Nor did it
have strands or fibers like silk thread would have. This was more
like a wire-all one piece or substance. In fact, I suppose it
could have been a sort of wire--that thought never occurred to me
before."

1st-LT. JAMES McANDREW (Speaking for the Air Force Report)
(KPFA) "Other people described a monofilament-type line that was
some-kind of fiber optics. Well there was indeed some single
nylon line present on this balloon."

CHARLES B. MOORE
(USAF description) [The Mogul radar reflectors were made of]
single strand and braided nylon twine, brass eyelets and swivels
to form a multi-faced reflector similar in construction to a box
kite.

(Pflock description) Moore and his team used very strong (150 and
300 pound test) monofilament nylon line in rigging their Mogul
arrays. This could account for the material which has been said
to resembled heavy gauge monofilament nylon fishing line. Also
used was hand braided lobster twine, composed of many fine nylon
threads. Moore told me the twine's individual strands strongly
resembled silk threads when the twine unraveled, which it did
easily when broken or cut. This could account for the debris
described as silk-like threads.
[End]


Also, re the "3-inch-diameter aluminum rings" which Moore
references:

"Brazel's daughter, Bessie Brazel Schreiber, in a 1979 interview
conducted by author William Moore described some aluminium ring-
shaped objects in the debris that looked like pipe intake collars
or the necks of balloons. (The mention of the rings appears in
William Moore's transcript of the interview, but was not included
in his book The Roswell Incident.)"

'The Roswell Incident and Project Mogul'
By Dave Thomas
Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 1995


As with any evidence, some of the most significant is that
documented at the time:

'The Wyoming Eagle' - 9 July, 1947
'Kite-Like Device Found in N.M.; Studied by Army'
By WILLIAM F. McMENAMIN

Washington, July 8 --(UP) -- The mystery of the "flying saucers"
took a new twist tonight with the disclosure that the army air
forces has recovered a strange object in New Mexico and is
forwarding it to Wright Field, Dayton, O., for examination.

Announcement of the find came first from the Roswell, N. Mex.
army air base, near where a "saucer" was found three weeks ago.

AAF spokesman would say only that the "saucer" was a flimsily-
constructed, kite-like object measuring about 25 feet in diameter
and covered with a material resembling tin foil.

A telephonic report from Brig. Gen. Roger B. Ramey, commander of
the Eighth Air Force at Ft. Worth, Texas, said the purported
"saucer" was badly battered when discovered by a rancher at
Corona, 75 miles northwest of Roswell, N.M.

Ramey scoffed at the possibility that the object could have
attained the supersonic speeds credited to the "flying saucers"
allegedly spotted in recent weeks.

He reported that the object was too lightly constructed to have
carried anyone and that there was no evidence that it had had a
power plant of any sort.

It bore no identification marks and Ramey emphasized that no one
had seen it in flight.

Sheriff George Wilcox of Roswell said the disc was found about
three weeks ago by W.W. Brizell (sic), on the Foster ranch at
Corona, 75 miles northwest of Roswell.

Wilcox said that Brizell does not have a telephone and so did not
report finding the disc until the day before yesterday. Brizell
told the sheriff he didn't know just what the disc was, but that
at first it appeared to be a weather meter.

The sheriff quoted Brizell as saying the object "seemed more or
less like tinfoil."  The rancher described the disc as about as
large as a safe in the sheriff's office.

The safe is about three and one-half by four feet.
[End]


That Brazel did believe the debris might be from a 'weather
meter' seems to be proven, as I've previously highlighted, by his
son's recollections in 'The Roswell Incident':

"...when dad first got into Roswell, it was the weather bureau
he called first about this stuff he had found. It was the
weather bureau that told him he had better see the sheriff about
it".


The true nature of the debris which Brazel found is patently
obvious from the 'Roswell Daily Record' article of 9 July - and
please, no 'statement made under duress' bollocks.

It evidently wasn't, as we can see:

'Harassed Rancher who Located 'Saucer' Sorry He Told About It'

"W.W. Brazel, 48, Lincoln county rancher living 30 miles south
east of Corona, today told his story of finding what the army at
first described as a flying disk, but the publicity which
attended his find caused him to add that if he ever found
anything short of a bomb he sure wasn't going to say anything
about it".

As his elder sister, Lorraine, noted in 'The Roswell Incident',
"Mac didn't ever like to be in the limelight". It was the
resulting, unexpected publicity which Brazel lamented.

"Brazel was brought here late yesterday by W.E. Whitmore, of
radio station KGFL, had his picture taken and gave an interview
to the Record and Jason Kellahin, sent here from the Albuquerque
bureau of the Associated Press to cover the story.

[...]

"Brazel related that on June 14 he and 8-year-old son, Vernon
were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J.B. Foster
ranch, which he operates, when they came upon a large area of
bright wreckage made up on (sic) rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather
tough paper and sticks".

There's the "rather tough paper", "tinfoil" and sticks.

No dispute about these, plus Brazel reportedly confirms there
were "rubber strips".

Although the stated 14 June date isn't certain, it may be
correct.

"At the time Brazel was in a hurry to get his round made and he
did not pay much attention to it".

Confirmed.

"But he did remark about what he had seen."

Confirmed.

"...and on July 4 he, his wife, Vernon, and a daughter Betty,
age 14, went back to the spot and gathered up quite a bit of the
debris".

He did return later to collect some of the debris.

"The next day he first heard about the flying disks, and he
wondered if what he had found might be the remnants of one of
these".

Brazel first heard of the 'flying disks' media frenzy when he
went into Corona.

"Monday he came to town to sell some wool."

Not true, according to his son, as published in 'The Roswell
Incident'; "Dad never sold any wool in Roswell".

"I believe his original intention was to go to Roswell and buy a
new Jeep pickup truck - he certainly wouldn't have made the trip
just on account of the stuff he had found - but I don't believe
he bargained for what he got himself into".

"...and while here he went to see sheriff George Wilcox and
'whispered kinda confidential like' that he might have found a
flying disk".

Apparently only after first contacting the 'weather bureau'.

"Wilcox got in touch with the Roswell Army Air Field and Maj.
Jesse A. Marcel and a man in plain clothes accompanied him home,
where they picked up the rest of the pieces of the 'disk'".

OK.

"...and went to his home to try to reconstruct it".

Is there any reason to doubt this?

"According to Brazel they simply could not reconstruct it at all.
They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that and
could not find any way to put it back together so that it would
fit".

If they attempted to reconstruct a kite from the 'flying disk'
debris, some of it must have resembled a kite, presumably why it
was described elsewhere at the time as a "kite-like object",
covered with tinfoil.

"Then Major Marcel brought it to Roswell and that was the last he
heard of it until the story broke that he had found a flying
disk.

Brazel said that he did not see it fall from the sky and did not
see it before it was torn up, so he did not know the size or
shape it might have been,...".

True.

"...but he thought it might have been about as large as a table
top".

Possibly accurate - see Sheriff Wilcox's comments above.

"The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked, must
have been about 12 feet long, he felt, measuring the distance by
the size of the room in which he sat. The rubber was smoky gray
in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter.

When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and
sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches
thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long
and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot
would have weighed maybe five pounds".

[...]

"There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been
used for an engine and no sign of any propellers of any kind,..."

True.

"...although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some of
the tinfoil".

Is there any reason whatsoever to doubt this?

"There were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument,
although there were letters on some of the parts".

Apparently accurate.

"Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon
it had been used in the construction".

Crucial evidence, as summarised in the following:

Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 21:31:29 -0400
From: DRudiak <drudiak@AOL.COM>
Subject: Roswell Crash Materials Eyewitness Testimony

B&M: Charles Berlitz and William Moore, "The Roswell Incident,"
1980.
F&B: Stanton Friedman and Don Berliner, "Crash at Corona", 1991
R&S1: Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt, "UFO Crash at Roswell"

4. TAPE-LIKE MATERIAL (AND "HIEROGLYPHICS", FLOWER PATTERNS)

BESSIE BRAZEL SCHREIBER:
(B&M) "Some of the metal-foil pieces had a sort of tape stuck to
them, and when these were held to the light they showed what
looked like pastel flowers or designs. Even though the stuff
looked like tape, it would not be peeled off or removed at all.
It was very light in weight, but there sure was a lot of it."

(F&B) "Some of [the aluminum foil-like] pieces had a sort of tape
stuck to them. Even though the stuff looked like tape, it could
not be peeled off or removed at all. Some of these pieces had
something like numbers and lettering on them, but there were no
words we were able to make out. The figures were written out like
you would write numbers in columns, but they didn't look like the
numbers we use at all."

(Pflock, USAF, from affidavit 9/22/93): "...Sticks, like kite
sticks, were attached to some of the pieces with a whitish tape.
The tape was about two or three inches wide and had flower-like
designs on it. The 'flowers' were faint, a variety of pastel
colors, and reminded me of Japanese paintings in which the
flowers are not all connected. I do not recall any other ...
markings."

LORETTA PROCTOR:
(Pflock, FUFOR, from affidavit 5/5/91) "..There was also
something he [Mac Brazel] described as tape which had printing on
it. The color of the printing was a kind of purple. He said it
wasn't Japanese writing; from the way he described it, it sounded
like it resembled hieroglyphics."

(R&S1): "He said there was more stuff there, like a tape that had
some sort of figures on it."
[End]


"No strings or wire were to be found."

Apparently not so - see previous evidence.

".. but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that
some sort of attachment may have been used".

OK.

"Brazel said that he had previously found two weather balloons on
the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way
resemble either of these".

Understandable. This was something different, despite it
consisting of "rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and
sticks".

"'I am sure what I found was not any weather observation
balloon,' he said. 'But if I find anything else besides a bomb
they are going to have a hard time getting me to say anything
about it'".

Clearly not sentiments expressed under any 'pressure'.


What does it take before 'Roswell' and the hugely successful
'MJ-12' hoax are acknowledged to be untenable scientific
evidence for the most incredible claim - that the crash of a
'spaceship' from another planet/dimension not only occurred, it
has been kept secret for over 50 years?

Maybe just the courage to concede, as many of us have, that it
was a mistaken possibility, principally founded on seductive
testimonies from now discredited 'witnesses' such as Gerald
Anderson. Glenn Dennis, Frank Kaufmann, etc.

What does it take before some people object to being targeted as
gullible by the 'MJ-12' hoaxer(s)?


Incidentally, it's now over a year since I detailed the
considerable anomalies re Kaufmann's supposed 'Top Secret'
Roswell report - see:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/apr/m30-004.shtml
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/jun/m01-017.shtml
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/jun/m02-018.shtml

Is there any reason why the questions raised therein still can't
be addressed?


Re the tape with purple/pastel flowers, although it's doubtful
this could successfully be followed up, the 'Las Vegas
Review-Journal' of 9 July, 1947 does mention, "Those men who saw
the object said it had a flowered paper tape around it bearing
the initials 'D.P.'"



James.
E-mail: voyager@ukonline.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                          Filer's Files #22 --1999

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:13:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:27:55 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #22 --1999


Filer's Files #22 --1999,  MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer,   Mutual UFO Network Eastern Director,
June 4, 1999,  Majorstar@aol.com  (609) 654-0020

UFO reports decrease in US, but increase in Canada, Mexico and the UK.

FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE -- On Friday, May 7, 1999, Cheryl Kirkland and her boyfriend=
 were
traveling west on NW 39th Avenue between Main and NW 6th Streets, Alachua
County.  Cheryl said, "I was in the passenger seat, while my boyfriend was=

driving when I noticed three objects in the distance on my side ahead at=
 8:15
PM.  As we got closer, I realized that they were floating, not flying.  I
know they were not birds since I am a bird enthusiast and have experience in=

bird identification.  They were three "balls" dark gray to black in
appearance and were in a vertical triangular formation (not a triangular
flight pattern horizontal and parallel to the ground).  I thought that they=

were perhaps balloons but decided they were rather large to be balloons and=

did not think three balloons would float and remain in a triangular pattern.=

They were the size of a small automobile.  Two of the balls moved up and
down.  I said, "What are those three balls in the sky -- slow down!"  We
drove at 30 mph and slower.  They flew right by in a perfect spherical=
 shape.
 My boyfriend slowed down and glanced over and saw the objects, but could=
 not
get a good look.  I told him to pull over.  He said he couldn't.  I yelled,=

"Pull over."  He argued, "There's no place to pull over!"  He was able to
drive slowly, while I kept my eye on the objects.  Then they just vanished. =

My boyfriend said he did briefly see three objects and they were moving up=

and down.  I called the police, but the officer I spoke with seemed
skeptical.  He told me to call the local TV station.  I spoke to the local=
 TV
meteorologist, who said there were no weather balloons in this area.  He
suggested they may have been reflections from the sun.  However, they were=

not shiny.  They were dark balls and definitely solid objects.  The UFO was=

sighted for 3 to-4 minutes at 1/4 mile. Thanks to Ben Field BUFOD:
http://www.abcfield.foirce9.co.uk

TEXAS

KARNES CITY -- Michael Harvey writes that in the summer of 1971, I was
working the night shift for Conoco Oil Company at an open pit uranium mine=

west of Karnes City.  I was one of six people operating Caterpillar 657B
earth movers.  We were down to about 210 feet deep when this incident
happened.  It was about 11:10 PM, just after shift change.  We were getting=

ready to crank our machines, when the 85 acre pit lit up as if it was
daylight.  The light was so bright that I had to squint because it hurt my=

eyes.  I remember hearing a high pitched hissing noise and the hair on my
arms stood on end.  I was so scared!  I fell to the ground and started
praying.  I remember trying to look up, but the light was so bright I could=

not.  After about two minutes, the light started getting dimmer and I could=

finally look up at it.  What I saw amazed me.  The object was round and the=

bright light was coming from the center of the bottom of the UFO.  Around=
 the
perimeter of the craft were hundreds of penlight size light beams that
alternated in all colors of the spectrum.  Now, I know they were laser=
 beams.
 The UFO was rising up slowly at first and then went straight up out of=
 sight
in about 10 seconds.  I was crying and shaking and so was everyone else. =
 The
other shift workers thought we were crazy when we told them what had
happened.  But, we got the last laugh.  This is how we proved the sighting=

actually happened.  There is a vein of uranium ore that runs from George,
West Texas to almost Texarkana, Texas.  When determining where to place a
uranium mine, the following steps are accomplished:  (1) A geologist with a=

Geiger counter flies over the area and finds the highest radiation reading. =

(2) Drilling trucks are sent out and core samples are drilled to determine=

the highest concentration of ore.  These core samples are drilled in a grid=

pattern and every core sample is given a tracking number and logged in
showing the concentration and amount of uranium present. (3) The open pit
mine is then laid out according to these core samples.  When this UFO
incident happened, we were about two feet away from a layer of hard rock
called the "tap rock" that lies directly on top of the uranium ore.  The
uranium ore varied in depth from 6 to 18 inches and had about the same brown=

color as low grade coal.  Two days after this incident, the tap rock was
removed to expose the uranium ore.  We were astounded to find that the
uranium ore was now a chalky white substance that had NO radioactivity at
all!  There was a 250 foot diameter circle of this chalky material in the
center of the pit.  Outside of the circle, the uranium ore was still as
potent as before the incident.  Core samples do not lie.  This chalky
material was uranium before this incident.  Many a night I have thought=
 about
what happened and wondered why the UFO needed the uranium?  Thanks to M.
Harvey Sam Rayburn Lake, TX mharve@inu.net

ARIZONA CONTRAILS AND UFO

PHOENIX -- Gary Graham was shooting photographs of strange contrails on May=

7, 1999, at 10:00 AM.  He was later interviewed by Linda Moulton Howe on the=

Art Bell show.  Gary stated, "I've been kind of interested in the contrails=

and been taking pictures of them for the last several months.  And so, I
looked up into the sky and the sky was just full of contrails that morning,=

including an X.  I've seen a lot of contrails up there, but not an X every=

single time."  Snip.  Linda asked, "WHAT DID YOU SEE?"  Gary stated, "When I=

first looked at this, it looked almost like a round, metallic ball in the
sky.  I kind of focused in over the roof of my next door neighbor's house=
 and
just outside one of the clouds up there and fairly close to one of the
contrails.  There was this round, metallic, ball-looking thing.  And then
right next to that, fairly close to it, there was a dark spot on the film. =
 I
zoomed in on it and could still see what appeared to be kind of a round
metallic object up there, but then the two dark spots -- or actually, the
dark spot -- looked like two dark spots.  It looked to me as if it could be=
 a
couple of military jets."  Thanks to Gary Graham and Linda Moulton Howe. =
 See
photos on: Contrail Connection http://www.contrailconnection.com/lmh1.htm
garyariz@home.com

BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA UFO SIGHTINGS

Last week we reported on four major UFO sightings in the Surrey Corridor
between May 21 and 23, 1999.  Bill Oliver UFO*BC reports there have been
numerous UFO sightings this year over British Columbia.  The first sighting=

occurred in January when Richard was traveling east on Zero Avenue, when he=

saw a wedge-shaped aircraft stationary above the power lines.  It was 'so
low,' and displaying white flashing lights.  Richard had two other=
 sightings.
 MAPLE RIDGE: On April 20, 1999, a couple who saw at 9:15 PM a small
pulsating light approaching at only 250 feet above the ground.  When the
light became stationary, all the lights in the town went out!  About ten
minutes later they saw a big white flash and a meteor-like streak heading in=

a northwestern direction, towards Pitt Lake.  They heard a "rushing wind
sound" and the city lights then came back on.  BC Hydro confirmed that Maple=

Ridge had an eleven minute transmission feed loss into a substation at 9:15=

PM.
CRESCENT BEACH -- On 22-April, a couple saw a brilliant flash of light in=
 the
night sky replaced by a circular spinning red light.  The object moved out=
 of
sight after a 30 second viewing.  Five days later a man and a woman came=
 upon
several swirls of grass laid down and woven in an area of high grass, that=

may have been caused by the UFO.  The pattern was about 15 feet in diameter=

and was very apparent in the otherwise normal grass area.
RICHMOND -- George, Linda and their 11-year-old son were driving south=
 across
Oak Street Bridge May 1, 1999.  Linda said, "What's that?"  She pointed at a=

square, flat object "floating" about 1000 to 1500 feet above the ground.  It=

had 8 "flood lights" on the front, white in color and steady in their
illumination.  At Shell Road, the object passed overhead at 10:00 PM
displaying an underside view of "aluminum sheeting."  This object made no
discernible noise and no power source could be seen.  The craft was seen for=

15 to 20 seconds and appeared to be heading towards Steveston Highway=
 instead
of the Vancouver Airport.  The estimated speed was 150 mph and although it=

lacked "depth," it appeared to be the size of a Boeing 737.  George phoned=

the control tower, but was told they had nothing unusual on radar.  This is=

the third sighting of very, very thin rectangular objects.
SURREY -- On May 3, 1999, at 9:30 PM, Gilan (9) and his ten-year-old sister=

saw 30 blue lights surrounding a large blue ball, which they watched for 4=

minutes.  On May 7, 1999, a boy resting in his bed looked out the window
10:45 PM, saw a bright white shiny circle move south across the sky.  The
object was the size of a penny at arm's length.

WHITE ROCK -- Debbie was attending to her young son, in his bedroom on April=

27, when a blast of blue light entered the room through the horizontal=
 blinds
at 4:30 AM.  Looking onto the street from another window she was astonished=

to see a cluster of 8 to 12 rectangular lights beamed onto the road in front=

of her neighbor's driveway.  The lights were stationary and covered an area=

about 8 by 8 feet.  She could also sense a really deep hum.  After viewing=

this for about ten seconds she was so shocked she returned to her son's=
 room.
 As she did so, a blast of white light came from the back of her house in=
 the
Dogwood Park area.  Looking into the park, she could see the white light of=
 a
UFO amongst the trees.
On May 7, 1999, Johan was driving down Fir Street at 9:00 PM, when he saw a=

large yellow, and blue-gray patch of light traveling across the water in an=

easterly direction.  He estimates the object was "300 meters in diameter"! =

The light appeared to be pulsating.  He viewed it from his car for about 30=

seconds.
On May 8, a couple and their two children were driving southeast on Highway=

#99.  Upon reaching 152nd Street at 9:30 PM they saw a large wedge-shaped
craft approaching slowly, at a very low altitude.  It had a bright white
light in the center, a blue light on one side and a red light on the other=

side.  A small conventional airplane flew diagonally across its path!  The=

wedge-shaped craft veered south towards White Rock.  Total viewing time was=

at least 4 minutes.
On May 9, Kevin and a friend were also driving south on Highway #99 when=
 they
spotted a "stealth" aircraft stationary about 100 feet above the trees at
10:15 PM.  The object displayed four headlights.  Shortly afterwards they
observed a "starburst" in the clear night sky, the color being orange to=
 red.
 When the light display faded away, the craft began to move away slowly.  At=

this point a red and blue flashing light appeared, one at each wing tip. =
 The
object had been above the highway 4 minutes.  The airport said, their radar=

coverage is limited to 1,000 feet and above, and that they had nothing to
report at this time.
Fifteen minutes later, Aliza, Sasha and Jennifer were leaving McDonalds at=

10:30 PM, when Sasha spotted a "HUGE" boomerang-shaped object slowly
approaching at a very low level.  They stopped the car and got out to gaze=
 at
it as it passed silently overhead.  It had 6 to 8 broad beamed red, green=
 and
white "headlights" flashing on and off, but not sequentially.  The lights
like an "image" in the clear night sky.  After 8 seconds, the object
disappeared from view in an instant!  All three young women were strongly
affected by what they saw.  On May 19, 1999, Laura and a friend saw a large=

white triangle come down vertically over White Rock at 11:44 PM.  It was the=

"size of her fist held at arm's length.
BURNABY - The next night, on May 10, Sid and Leon were on Burnaby Mountain=

when they spotted a "massive," long craft below the tops of the trees at
10:43 PM.  It initially appeared stationary, but started moving slowly, with=

no discernible noise.  The right side facing them had a yellow light, a long=

red light and a blue to green or gray light.  They viewed it for 6 to 8
minutes.  Twenty minutes later it returned, with the light configuration in=

reverse.  VICTORIA, Two nights later on 12 May a married couple was at the=

gazebo a favorite UFO viewing spot at the University of Victoria.  They were=

looking eastward across the Straits of Juan De Fuca, towards Vancouver, when=

they saw a bright light, the color of fire, indulge in high speed erratic
motions around 9:00 PM.  They watched it for about 8 minutes before it=
 landed
or disappeared into the ocean?  The light was 1/2 the size of a dime held at=

arm's length.  A few minutes later, another fiery object appeared in the=
 same
spot and "danced" around the sky in an identical manner.  After eight
minutes, this triangular shaped object also disappeared in a similar manner.=

Later, a third yellow to gold object appeared and repeated the antics of the=

two previous objects for about 8 minutes before disappearing.
MUD BAY -- On May 14, 1999, a married couple was walking along Mud Bay at
8:15 PM, when they saw a 35 foot long 'black thing.'  It had an upright=
 'tail
fin' traveling through the water from marker to marker.  It made no sound=
 and
left no wake!  The man is convinced it was neither a sea lion nor a whale. =

At 8:30 PM they were on the road near "1000 Steps" at Crescent Beach when
they saw on the road an orange spot of light about ten feet in diameter.
RICHMOND -- On May 15, 1999, two people observed two red objects high in=
 the
sky at 9:15 PM.  The objects were seen for a two or three minutes and
displayed unusual flight patterns flying from right to left and then
reversing.  They did not maintain a consistent light as they blinked=
 randomly
without sequence for the total sighting time.  Thanks to Louise A. Lowry and=

Bill Oliver UFO*BC oliver2849@home.com

CONTRAILS OVER  BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

VANCOUVER -- On May 21, 1999, more unusual contrail or 'chemtrail' patterns=

were seen again.  This was probably the "heaviest" day since mid-April.  The=

first sighting was at 12:30 PM, was a single odd looking contrail to the
east, which was "bent" at a fairly sharp almost 90 degree angle, looking=
 like
an "L" floating in the sky.  By 2:30 PM, we noticed several contrails off in=

the west that noticeably expanded, and formed 'beads' along the bottom of=
 it,
like 'drips.'  Over the next two hours the western half of the sky became
filled with six contrails, that became very thick.  Most were horizontal and=

parallel to each other, while another one crossed the sky at an odd looking=

angle.  I noticed a large X type pattern composed of a large, very thick,
translucent looking contrail and a narrower but still large contrail.  At
about 4:00, another, even bolder X was seen.  I've noticed many of the=
 larger
contrails seem to appear out of nowhere.  No planes are heard or seen.  The=

contrails were at a lower altitude than the cumulous clouds at 6,000 to
12,000 feet and too low for normal contrail formation.
On May 26, 1999, the "contrails" were seen en masse today.  Since 11:30 AM,=

the activity was virtually nonstop.  There were numerous contrails in all
directions, including large Xs and "grid patterns" with four crossing each=

other overhead.  Some of the contrails are *very* thick and wide, others are=

thinner.  Some looked very low in altitude, others were higher up.  I
observed a low flying twin engine plane that repeatedly circled overhead. =

Using my binoculars I could see its landing gear was down, and it had a
flashing light on its tail.  It did not leave a noticeable contrail, since=
 it
was too low for any normal contrail formation.  Later, I observed a vaporish=

"contrail" like pattern that began to develop as it cut through the sky.  A=

second and third contrail developed and they all seemed to blend into one=
 big
one.  The contrails slowly developed and thickened after repeated flybys of=

the aircraft, rather than simply being initially "sprayed out" in the usual=

noticeable manner.  That area of the sky was then later filled with the big=

wide low level contrails.  Thanks to Paul Anderson Director The Millennium=

Project Web: http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

MEXICO

PUEBLA -- On June 1, 1999, three UFOs were filmed by Mexican Television=
 over
the city of Puebla in broad daylight.  Mexican television has shown at least=

three UFOs hanging over the city of Puebla southeast of the Mexican capital.=

Judging by the film shown by "Atsteka" television the UFOs were visible in=

the sky for around five minutes.  The phenomenon had been watched on Monday=

morning by dozens of people.  They said, the UFOs, were rather large, and
were lined up in space eight kilometers wide.  The UFOs had a silver color,=
 a
round shape and emanated a powerful light.  One of them quickly disappeared,=

while the other two moved southwest, flying at a very high speed.  Mexican=

Civil Aviation officials have not given any explanation of the incident yet.=

Channel 9 in Chile also carried the video report as part of its breaking=
 news
reports of UFO sightings over South America.  Thanks to Guillermo Alarcon
ufoalarcon@webtv.net

CHILE

SANTIAGO -- Guillermo Alarcon reports that on Saturday, May 19, 1999,=
 Channel
7 showed a video of a UFO over the Chilean capital in broad daylight.  The=

program was broadcast at 10:00 PM, on a breaking news report.  There was=
 also
another UFO image filmed the night before.  Thanks to: Guillermo Alarcon
ufoalarcon@webtv.net Editor's Note:  The government of Chile is working with=

UFO investigators to investigate various UFO reports.  They are taking a=
 very
open stance concerning the intruding UFOs.  It would be refreshing if the US=

government would do likewise.

UNITED KINGDOM  METEOROLOGISTS  SEE UFO

WESSENDEN RESERVOIR -- John Morris age 48 reports that he and a colleague=
 had
a sighting of a UFO on Friday, May 28, 1999, at 11:30 AM.  John states:  "I=

viewed a metallic craft, triangular in dimensions; approaching some forty
feet in length, from tip to tip."  Said craft was in view for some 45
seconds, flying at high speed and amazing versatility some six feet above=
 the
ground.  It disappeared over the crest of a hill above rolling moorland. =
 The
nearest town is Huddersfield.  The weather conditions were clear and dry=
 with
a calm wind.  No sound was heard.  The craft flew amazingly close to the
ground following the rolling hills at about six feet.  A video was made of=

the craft.  There was no missing time experienced and permission is granted=

to publish this report.  Thanks to Ben Field BUFOD:
http://www.abcfield.foirce9.co.uk.  Editor's Note: We would like to get copy=

of these videos to place in the Air Victory Museum's, UFO exhibits.

HOW TO STOP ABDUCTIONS

Wes Clark writes, "The abductees we work with have had great success in
stopping abductions by calling for help from Jesus.  The book of Acts should=

be read because it has many parallels with the present day UFO abduction
phenomena.  We are not trying to tell anyone what they should believe, we=
 are
reporting -- what our cases have proved.  I am reporting on what I have=
 found
in some not-so-ancient Greek writings.  It's amazing how few things have
changed in the enemy's tactics since the first century.  In the Acts of the=

Apostles Chapter 19, Paul writes:

"A team of itinerant Jews who were traveling from town to town casting out=

demons planned to experiment by using the name of the Lord Jesus.  The
incantation they decided on was this: "I adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul
preaches, to come out!  Seven Sons Of Sceva, a Jewish priest, were doing
this.  But when they tried it on a man possessed by a demon, the demon
replied, "I know Jesus and I know Paul, but who are you?"  And he leaped on=

two of them and beat them up, so that they fled out of his house naked and=

badly injured.  The story of what happened spread quickly all through
Ephesus, to Jews and Greeks alike; and a solemn fear descended on the city,=

and the name of the Lord Jesus was greatly honored.  Many of the believers=

who had been practicing black magic confessed their deeds and brought their=

incantation books and charms and burned them at a public bonfire."  Acts 19,=

verse 13 to 19.

Wes further states, "The implications of this record are tremendous!  These=

seven brothers tried to do what many of their contemporaries were
successfully doing -- casting out evil spirits, also known as "Space Pals"=
 in
the name of Jesus Christ!  This is EXACTLY what today's former abductees=
 have
done!  The reason these guys were not successful is because they used the
name of Jesus like a magic word, like "abra cadabra."  They weren't using=
 the
power of the name of Christ with any authority because at that point, they=

had no personal relationship with Jesus Christ, hence, no Sonship rights. =

(Reference Romans 8:16-17.)  This evil spirit recognized that right away,
hence his statement, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are YOU?"  It=

recognized, of course, the power and authority of Jesus Christ, and also
Paul, who as a joint-heir with Christ, used the name with authority.  These=

seven brothers however did not have that authority.  The evil spirit saw
their bluff and called them on it, and as the story points out, they took
quite a beating.  This also by the way suggests that demonic entities can
manifest physically as the wounds these guys received were obviously
physical.  The people of Ephesus were able to understand something that we=

today, cannot seem to grasp -- the power of Jesus Christ.  There is
absolutely no mystery about if it exists, what the source of it is, or what=

it all means.  Not only does it suggest the reality of spiritual warfare. =
 It
also suggests it is not a game for spiritual lightweights and/or people who=

don't know what they're talking about.  This is unlike all the ambiguous
double talk shrouded in mystery that we get from many sources.  If one must=

attack these findings, one must attack the cases.  To do that, one must call=

them liars, and to do that, one must call every abductee who ever came
forward with their story a liar.  Thanks to Wesley M. Clark, wclark59@bv.net=


HEAVIEST HURRICANE SEASON EVER PREDICTED.  Fourteen major hurricanes are
predicted during the next 6 months by the U.S. National Hurricane Center.

UFO CONFERENCES: June 5 & 6, The 9th UFO/ET Congress at the Days Inn, Rt.=
 206
Bordentown, NJ.  For more information call Pat Marcattilio at (609) 631-8955=

or Tom Benson (609) 883-6921.  Derrel Sims, implant investigator and Bob
Durant on Roswell are two of the scheduled speakers.  On July 2-4, 30th
Annual MUFON 1999 International UFO Symposium at Hyatt Regency Crystal City=

Hotel in Arlington Virginia.  E-mail mufonhq@aol.com

TAPE OF EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE UFO ENCOUNTER

Lunar Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell was at Edwards the night the UFO chase
occurred.  The 6th person to walk on the moon said, "The night it happened I=

investigated it myself and this was a real event."  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 in an important
part of UFO history.  Hear it for yourself, its the best UFO tape ever made=

and its record of a real event.  The cost of the tape is $14.95 each plus
$2.00 for shipping -- total $16.95 -- you can send either a personal check=
 or
money order to: Independent International Films, Box 565, Dept.  GF, Old
Bridge, New Jersey 08857.
BUY IT AND LISTEN TO THE TAPE WITH YOUR FRIENDS!

MUFON JOURNAL For more detailed investigative reports subscribe by writing=
 to
103 Oldtowne Road, Sequin, TX 78155-4099 or E-mail Mufon@aol.com.  Filer's=

Files Copyright 1999 by George A. Filer, all rights reserved.  Readers may=

post items from the Files on their Websites provided that they credit the
newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue that the item=

appeared.  Send your letters to me at Majorstar@aol.com.  If you wish to=
 keep





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                               UK UFO Weekend

From: Sue Lawrence <NevadaFighter@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:13:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:34:13 -0400
Subject: UK UFO Weekend


Hi All,

UK UFO Weekend

The UFO Forum present the UK UFO conference weekend including
special international guest Donald Schmidt.

On Saturday 5th June at 7pm BST (2 pm eastern, 1pm central, 12
pm mountain, 11 am pacific) Nick Pope, former MoD UFO
investigator and author of 'Open Skies, Closed Minds' and 'The
Uninvited'.

Nick will be talking about 'Ufology For The New Millenium' and
the latest developments in alien abduction research.

Following at 8.30pm BST (3:30 pm eastern, 2:30 pm central, 1:30
pm mountain, 12:30 pm pacific) live from the Roswell Museum,
will be Donald Schmidt with some startling new revelations on
the Roswell saga to reveal.

On Sunday 6th June at 7pm BST(2 pm eastern, 1pm central, 12 pm
mountain, 11 am pacific) we welcome Nick Redfern, author of 'A
Covert Agenda', 'The FBI Files' and soon to be released 'Cosmic
Crashes'.

Nick will be discussing the information he has gained from many
government documents released by the UK and US governments,
including UFO radar tracking, military interceptions of UFOs,
and the Joint Intelligence Committee's UFO involvement.

At 8.30 pm BST (3:30 pm eastern, 2:30 pm central, 1:30 pm
mountain, 12:30 pm pacific) we will be joined by Matthew
Williams, expert on UK government cover-ups, secret underground
facilities, and crop circle maker. Matthew will be discussing
the latest information on the underground tunnels that he has
found to exist below Rudloe Manor and surrounding RAF bases,
plus his experiences whilst making crop circles.

All these conferences will be held in the 'Special Guests'
Conference room, and will be available via the internet on
http://go.compuserve.com/ufo

Sue Addison

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/nevadafighter
http://go.compuserve.com/ufo





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:47:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>The Eastonian Times-Picayune is back, starting off with the
>>usual bird-brained theories about the original Kenneth Arnold
>>sighting. Bruce Maccabee, myself, and others argued ourselves
>>blue in the face with all sorts of mathematical and other
>>arguments why birds couldn't possibly work (can birds outfly a
>>plane?). A lot of good it did. Don't get me started.


>Why don't we get you started? Did it ever occur to you (and
>Maccabee) that your mathematical arguments and analysis of the
>Arnold case are only right if you assume Arnold was absolutely
>incapable of human error? But what if he was wrong? What if, for
>example, he saw another flight of some 20-25 objects not too
>long after his original sighting which certainly sound like
>birds to most of us? What if he went on to report seven UFO >
>sightings total? What if he eventually concluded that UFOs are
>space animals -- "living organisms...in the atmosphere"?>

Regarding Arnold's _first_ sighting... which has been the subject
of my discussion.... there is no assumption that Arnold was
"absolutely incapable of human error." Anyone who thinks there
was such an assumption does not understand the nature of the
analysis. In fact, the arguments assume that Arnold could have
been in error in some places. But, let's get down to the crux
of the matter: which Arnold statements would you like to reject
or modify?

1) Arnold says he saw flashes of sunlight on his plane. Did he
or didn't he? What did he see?

2) Arnold said the initial flashes came from an area north of
Mt. Rainier. Did he perhaps get the direction wrong, or is there
something else?

3) Arnold thought the objects were a little higher than he was
(9,500 ft, vs his 9,200). What do you think the TRUE altitude
was, if you don't accept Arnold's statement?

4) Arnold described them as "flipping and flashing". If this is
not what he saw, then what do you think he saw?

5)Arnold claimed he looked at his dashboard clock when the first
one passed Mt. Rainier.... Did he get the time wrong? If so, by
how much?


6) Arnold looked again at the clock as the last one passed
Rainier.... did he get the time wrong? If so, by how much?

7) Arnold said he turned the plane sideways and looked through
his open window. At this time he would have been flying south,
parallel to the objects. Was he wrong/lying?

etc.

Any sighting can be broken into a series of observational
details, each of which can be analyzed, but all together of
which form the information content of the sighting.

The skeptic assumption is that Arnold was wrong in one or more
of his descriptive details. For example, that Arnold
overestimated the distance. But he said the objects were going
in and out of mountain peaks which were about 20 miles away. Was
he wrong?

Clearly if the details can be modified "at will" any sighting
can be explained. The analysis of the Arnold sighting has been
carried out with the fulfill realization that Arnold could have
been wrong on some fine points. But to get a conventional
explanation one has to assume Arnold was wrong on some major
points.

If you are going to "complain" that Arnold wasn't perfect, then
specify where you think he was wrong and we can argue over
whether or not it makes sense in the context of the sighting to
assume he was wrong..

>Don't get me started.

>You, Maccabee and others can mathematically analyze Arnold's
>original statements all you want, or until Hell freezes over,
>whichever comes first. And it doesn't mean a goddamn thing unless
>you think he was absolutely dead on and incapable of any error
>in perception whatever.

Not very clever remark. Sounds "whiney"

>Now explain how Miracle Man, i.e., Arnold, came to believe that
>UFOs were living organisms.

>Troubling, isn't it?

Perhaps, but so what?

When the _interpretation_ is separated from the _observation_
and the _observation_ is analyzed, the witness' suggestion as to
the _interpretation_ becomes irrelevant.

You seem to be saying that because Arnold in later years
concluded saucers were animals, that therefore one can't believe
the observational details in his first sighting.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                  UFOs in Piracicaba and Sao Pedro, Brazil

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:31:18 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 12:10:19 -0400
Subject: UFOs in Piracicaba and Sao Pedro, Brazil


More news.

Several UFOs were seen flying last Saturday and last night in
Sao Pedro e Piracicaba, district of Sao Paulo.

Around 40 ufologists from the UFO group "UFO-Genesis, from
Piracicaba, were doing a skywatch when small luminous lights
were seen.

Some people reported had seen the same objects in Jardim Jupi=E1
and Bongue neighbourhood.

According to ufologist, Prof. Michel Cevell=F3, these phenomena
could be the confirmation that the region of Piracicaba presents
a new UFO wave.

During the skywatch on Saturday, the researchers used optical
instruments and electromagnetism meters. Before they see the
objects, the ufology claim that the meter registered some
variation in the place.

The spheres had a 50 cm diameter.

Around 11:23PM they saw another UFOs with 15cm diameter, coming from the
other side.


THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI
Diretor Do Departamento de Publica=E7=E3o e Tradu=E7=E3o Especializadas (=
 DEPTE -
EBE-ET / Brasilia-Brasil)
Director of the Publication Department and Specialized Translation
ICQ - 35119615
****************** STOP THE WAR ***********************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                      Re: Intruders Foundation Website

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:50:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 15:07:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Intruders Foundation Website


>Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:58:02 -0400
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Intruders Foundation Website

>Hi All,

<snip>

>I will continue to moderate and maintain the Abduction
>Information Center. Members can simply continue to access the
>website and interactive e-mail list the same as always. However,
>AIC will no longer be affilated with Budd or the Intruders
>Foundation.

>I have no idea who will pick up the work. For now, I am no
>longer the webmaster for IF and I will no longer represent
>either Budd or the Intruders Foundation in any way.

>I hope this doesn't create an inconvenience for anyone.
>It's just something I have to do for myself.

I am saddened by this development, worry about losing the solidity of
your passionate involvement, and hope it was not some bland and
convenient partisanship that caused its precipitation.

Consider me a supporter -- whatever the genesis.

As I've written -- it's a wonder that you have lasted this long
still maintaining the rationality that you so abundantly
portray.

You are a true hero -- John; a pioneer. Those that follow
shuffle in your footprints.

It was _you_ after all that convinced us that this phenomena was
happening to real people. You interested the lay person with
your believable discourse, the wealth of your spirit, and your
seemingly tireless enthusiasm.

You did this in the face of all ridicule, discouragement, and
irritation.

You did it for virtually nothing.

We'll all live to see your vindication and your ultimate
success, I'm sure.

Good luck, and damn the torpedoes.

Write the book.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

--
Ponder the Wit & Wisdom of Ching Chow!
View "Unstill Life" -- Animation . . . and more.
Consider Matter, Mind & Movement.
See the current HTML "Apology to MW" with illustration.
Take a ride in the Teleporter.

Explore "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/
<Updated 27 May>

John Ford Restoration Fund -- Send your checks and
money orders to _me_, Alfred Lehmberg
(cut out the lawyers, they got their's) at:
304 Melbourne Drive, Enterprise AL, 36330. Strict records kept.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from
afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, burned at the
fundamentalist's stake.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                                 Ted Roach?

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:04:07 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 17:53:50 -0400
Subject: Ted Roach?


Hi People,

Does anyone on this list have a contact address for Ted Roach
who wrote "Physics of A Flying Saucer" I would like to interview
him for the next issue (7) of Down To Earth?

Also a big thank you to Marc Bell of WUFOG for supplying me with
a freaky picture for my gallery. Who said you can't make faces
out of wood!

Cheers Roy..

Find The Lost Haven & Down To Earth Magazine





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                       Re: *U* Map: North America 1947

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 13:45:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 18:00:28 -0400
Subject: Re: *U* Map: North America 1947


>Subj: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: *U* Map: North America 1947
>Date: 6/4/99 4:07:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>From: larryhat@jps.net (Larry Hatch)
>To:    updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto), YoungBob2@aol.com

Larry, All:

>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
>>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:01:45 EDT
>>Subject: *U* Map: North America 1947
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>Sidereal Sightings Histogram.

<snip>

>That's where I goofed,  I'm off by a good hour of R.A., even though
>the data seems centered around 20 hours RA.

>>The galactic center is not in Capricorn, it is at 17H 45.7m
>>Right Ascension,  -29 deg Declination, two Zodiacal signs to the
>>west, in Scorpio.

Actually, you were three hours off in Right Ascension

>>But, again, for this peak of reports I suggest an Observer
>>Effect.  The jump in sightings you point to undoubtedly comes
>>from reports in early August, during the summer months when
>>folks are outdoors and when it gets dark by 9 P.M.

>Bob:  I ran the same routine with data from all months except
>August.    I got essentially the same curve.  -LH

Was there an increase in sightings at other times when the
galactic center was highest, for example 1 A.M. in early May or
4 A.M. in early March?  I also wonder whether an examination of
sightings from Australia where the galactic center can be nearly
directly overhead, Sydney for example is about 35 degrees South,
shows anything?

>I'm sure there is some seasonal effect.   Apparently there
>is some other effect as well.

How about an increase in daylight sightings at times when the
galactic center is high, this might elliminate seasonal effects
because these would be at other times of the year?

I would very much like to read the complete paper from the SSE
meeting.  Can you point me in the right direction or send a copy
or scan to me directly?

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 4

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:50:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 18:02:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 99 08:26:28 PDT

<snip>

>I'm at a loss to understand what Dennis is trying to say here.
>The notion that UFOs may be living organisms -- "space animals"
>-- long ago went out of fashion, but it was a view held (however
>naively in retrospect) by a number of Ken Arnold's prominent
>contemporaries. Even Project Sign personnel characterized it as
>"one of the most intelligent theories we have received." The
>eminently respectable Civilian Saucer Intelligence of New York
>(Bloecher, Davis, Mebane) took the idea seriously, and it was
>discussed in writings by a variety of other early UFO writers,
>including Charles Fort, Desmond Leslie, M. K. Jessup, John
>Philip Bessor, Curtis Fuller, Trevor James Constable, and Ivan
>T. Sanderson.  Arnold picked up his ideas from notions current
>in the late 1940s and 1950s.

>For a full discussion of the theory and its history, see my The
>UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp. 872-77.

>Arnold was anything but a fruitcake, and I am startled and
>depressed that Dennis would suggest as much on such flimsy --
>well, actually, nonexistent -- evidence. This is revisionist
>ufology at its worst.  I would have expected better of Dennis.


Jerry,

Arnold may well have been aware of the writings of the people
you mention. But judging from his own writings, he based his
belief that UFOs were some type of living organism on his own
experiences. See the following, for example:

"This is the same sort of impression [of a living thing] I got
after seeing these same things again in 1952. Two of them flew
under me at Mount Lassen. I got a movie of these, and one was
just as solid as a Chevrolet car. But you could see the pine
trees right through the other one that was following it. I too
got the feeling that here was something that was alive, rather
than that they were machines."

From "How It All Began" by Kenneth Arnold in Proceedings of the
First International UFO Congress, p. 28, which you helped edit,
according to the cover. You quote the article in your The UFO
Book.

Has anyone ever seen that movie, BTW? Does anyone have any idea
of what may have happened to it?

Little more than a month after his first sighting, on July 29,
Arnold had his second encounter with UFOs.

"As I was letting down into LaGrande valley, I saw far off my
left and a little lower than my plane [another airplane].
Suddenly, as I continued to lose altitude, I was confronted by a
flock of what looked like ducks. I knew they weren't ducks
because they were brassy-colored and large -- at least three
feet across or possibly four or five. There were a couple dozen
of them, possibly more, and they were bunched and coming right
at me. Eventually they swerved away -- and because they had the
flight characteristics of the first flying saucers I decided to
take after them. When I dived into the cluster, these things,
whatever they were, soared away as if I was standing still."

That from the following article in the Proceedings,  "The Maury
Island Episode," also by Arnold himself, p. 32.

Too bad we didn't get as detailed a description of his second
sighting as we did with his first one. Even though this is a
much closer encounter, Arnold is vague about their size, speed,
and number, and doesn't even mention their shape, although it's
possible he gave more details in his own book, which I haven't
read.

I'm not sure how many saucer sightings Arnold reported over his
lifetime. I think I've seen anywhere between five and seven. One
can make of that what one wants, or nothing at all. He could
have been prone to "see" saucers (and if his first account is
truly accurate, who could blame him!) -- or he could have been
extraordinarily lucky.

I take back my remark about Arnold being a fruitcake,
personally. Had I been more careful in my original post, I would
have said something like, "One may not always know whether one
is dealing with a fruitcake or not when (whatever)." And then of
course one would have to define fruitcake.

So Arnold was what he was.

And I'd still like to see that movie!






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                      Re: Intruders Foundation Website

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:38:37 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 10:50:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Intruders Foundation Website


>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:50:24 -0500
>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Intruders Foundation Website

>>Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:58:02 -0400
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Intruders Foundation Website

><snip>

>>I will continue to moderate and maintain the Abduction
>>Information Center. Members can simply continue to access the
>>website and interactive e-mail list the same as always. However,
>>AIC will no longer be affilated with Budd or the Intruders
>>Foundation.

>>I have no idea who will pick up the work. For now, I am no
>>longer the webmaster for IF and I will no longer represent
>>either Budd or the Intruders Foundation in any way.

>>I hope this doesn't create an inconvenience for anyone.
>>It's just something I have to do for myself.

>I am saddened by this development, worry about losing the solidity of
>your passionate involvement, and hope it was not some bland and
>convenient partisanship that caused its precipitation.

>Consider me a supporter -- whatever the genesis.

>As I've written -- it's a wonder that you have lasted this long
>still maintaining the rationality that you so abundantly
>portray.

>You are a true hero -- John; a pioneer. Those that follow
>shuffle in your footprints.

>It was _you_ after all that convinced us that this phenomena was
>happening to real people. You interested the lay person with
>your believable discourse, the wealth of your spirit, and your
>seemingly tireless enthusiasm.

>You did this in the face of all ridicule, discouragement, and
>irritation.

>You did it for virtually nothing.

>We'll all live to see your vindication and your ultimate
>success, I'm sure.

>Good luck, and damn the torpedoes.

>Write the book.

>Lehmberg@snowhill.com


I wish I could be funny.  I wish I could make a joke. I wish I
could get angry.  I can't do any of those things. I won't do any
of those things. Maybe later....

When I first discovered AIC and John Velez, I was a mess. I had
no idea that I was not insane.  In spite of being shrunk by the
best shrinks, despite being told they were just some dreams,
childhood molestation, a case of the dreaded Mojo of the Magogo,
I was never sure. I was not even sure of my memories.  Are they
memories or that W.C. Fields disease again come to get me?

After a short time and a lot of love and care, and more insight
than I have _ever_ witnessed in my (then) 54 years, I was
literally transformed.  Not by John Velez but by his unerring
and insanely competent judgment, logic and reason.  Every time
he yelled at me (actually it only felt like that, he was in
reality, Margo, the friendly Grelb), every time he opened his
mouth, responsible words came out.  John Velez helped me heal
myself.  Took 55 years and no one, _no_one_, had been able to do
that or help me do that.  More than half a century!

I am in the debt of John Velez for ever.  As are many like me.
We've been exposed for the real people we are, real people with
real experiences which are really unexplainable, except for the
likely possibilities exposed by his untiring hard work.

Errol Bruce Kanappy knows some of what Velez went thru. Errol
saw and heard it.  And John wound up in Errol's arms, not
knowing who the hell he was or where he came from or even if he
was a believer or a skeptic.  He just LOOKED friendly to John
Velez, who had just had a most terrible experience at the hands
of a very uncaring and abusive audience.

"I need a hug!" he said to this total stranger.  And got one.

That stranger was Errol Bruce Knapp.  And I love  you for it
Errol.  I even spelled your name right that last time!  And I
also love Jeff Rense, for being a gentleman as well.

John Velez is a once in a lifetime person.  Aint none like him
with the guts to do what he's done.  NO ONE!  He's "...made
shoes for everyone, even me, and he still goes barefoot."

John, as long as I can make me mortgage payment, I promise you
as much as I can give.  And I promised Rosemarie and me, that I
will never ever do what I did again... except for my friends.  I
know who they are.  We should all be that lucky...

Thank you John.  I love you like the brother I never had.  And
since I got me an uncle in the family, just call me anytime some
punk gets in your way. Da family will take care of it. Just
remember, I may aks you to retoin dis favor someday. Ma, Tu
Gabeesh?

Your friend and impatient patient,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                             Re: UK UFO Weekend

From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 20:20:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 12:18:25 -0400
Subject: Re: UK UFO Weekend


>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:13:44 -0400
>From: Sue Lawrence <NevadaFighter@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UK UFO Weekend
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Hi All,

>UK UFO Weekend

>The UFO Forum present the UK UFO conference weekend including
>special international guest Donald Schmidt.

>Following at 8.30pm BST (3:30 pm eastern, 2:30 pm central, 1:30
>pm mountain, 12:30 pm pacific) live from the Roswell Museum,
>will be Donald Schmidt with some startling new revelations on
>the Roswell saga to reveal.


I hope I am not disappointing too many people, but the above is
not quite right. Don is not in Roswell (nor am I). We are
actually between trips, and it will be me, not Don, who will be
on-line for the UFO Forum.

Everything else is correct.

Tom





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 12:40:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

>Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:30:14 -0400
>From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

>>I don't know who, if anyone, has any written reports, full or
>>partial, from these four. I suppose Colin Andrews or other
>>British crop-formation investigators would be the ones to
>>contact on that.

>Noye's book claimed that Andrews and Delgado ignored these
>reports as they were daytime sightings, and they were trying to
>prove that formations only appeared at night. So much for
>objective research!

Yes, that's what Meaden said there. If true, that's almost as
bad as those ufologists who automatically ignore reports and
evidence from those claiming to be contactees, because they're
not abductees!

>Given that a few of the oil-seed rape formations this year seem
>to refer to the solar eclipse in August, do you think the aliens
>are going to present themselves?

Well, like Clinton, I would need to know what you mean by
"present." They have of course already presented themselves to
thousands of abductees and to the legitimate contactees. But
they've left only meager evidence behind. So perhaps what you
mean is, will they do so (in August), this time leaving all
kinds of irrefutable evidence behind? I doubt it; their
escalation in degree of firmness and abundance of evidence seems
to be growing only gradually over the years.

>Or what other meaning do you think the formations have?

Your guess may be as good as mine; I think they have the same
educational purposes as the rest of the crop circles and
formations have had, and which likewise the UFO sightings and
contacts have had.

>>Here's one for you to  ponder, since you have Noyes' (editor)
>>_The Crop Circle Enigma_. Go to p. 22 of that book and you'll
>>see diagrams made by Terence Meaden and Colin Andrews of the
>>crop circle of 1 Aug. '86 at Headbourne Worthy, Hampshire. It
>>was a two-layer system, with an underlayer swirled one way and
>>an upper layer above it, covering it, swirled such that the lay
>>of the [upper-layer] stems was at right angles to that of the
>>layer just underneath. The diagrams depict the direction of the
>>respective swirls. The photograph of it is shown on p. 36 of
>>_Circular Evidence_  by Delgado & Andrews.

>Thanks, I'll definitely check that out.

>>You won't find any crop-circle naysayer talking about this one,
>>or speculating on how it could have been hoaxed, or trying to
>>demonstrate how it might be hoaxed. That's because it's pretty
>>mind-boggling just to wonder about. You have to imagine that
>>somehow every other crop stem out of the many thousands was
>>first bent over (without breaking the stems) in one direction of
>>swirl while the remaining stems all around stood intact. Then,
>>these intact stems were bent over with a swirl at right angles
>>to the swirl given to the other stems.

>Have you asked any circle makers how this could be done?

No, I don't know Doug and Dave's address. I do know that one
usually receives only silence or a change of subject upon posing
the question to skeptics. So I'll stay tuned for any idea you
put forth on how it could be feasibly accomplished for a circle
as large as 57 feet in diameter. It was probably no accident
that the upper-layer circle of swirled stems did not entirely
cover the under layer at the circumference -- if they had, the
lower lower might not have been discovered.

>If those signs are to be taken seriously surely they should
>appear in oil-seed rape as you claim they are alien made?

I haven't kept up on it in enough detail, Tony, to know. I would
not assume that the tests haven't been made by Levingood on
stems from oil-seed rape crop circles.

>You'll find that crop bent at different heights is just a
>natural effect, I gather you saw the program 'Secrets of Crop
>Circles'.

No, I didn't see that. I was referring to certain crop-circle
reports wherein the stems within a given formation were all bent
over at the *same* approximate height, like 1" or 2" or 4" above
the ground, as opposed to the usual 1/4" or so, which trampling
on it can try to simulate.

>Can you name any crop circle maker that has been caught at all?

I haven't kept track of the names of any of the admitted hoaxers
other than the first names Doug & Dave. I was referring to those
hundreds of crop circles over the years that have been
astounding in their size, complexity, creative design,
bending-over of the stems with minimal breakage, and other
features such as braiding.

Their makers were never caught, whereas common sense dictates
that if humans had done them, a substantial percentage would
have been caught in the act, and/or have left tell-tale signs
behind.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                       Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99

From: Rense E-News <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:40:01 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 12:45:42 -0400
Subject: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99


----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
----------------------------------------------------------------

The Week Ahead
  6-6-99 thru 6-12-99

 Guests, Announcements, Week's Top Stories
   From sightings.com

Jeff Rense E-News is distributed exclusively by Free Subscription.
 ___________


   !! ANNOUNCEMENT !!

   We are PROUD to bring you this new FREE service!

    Internet Greeting Cards featuring the
 Exclusive Award Winning Art of

    ** JAMES NEFF **
Commercial Artist & jeffrense/sightings.com Webmaster

   http://www.immunotex.com/rense/cards/cards.html

    Presented to Rense E-News subscribers first!

 ___________

  * From Jeff's Desk *

There are hundreds of short, sometimes intriguing but thoroughly
unverifiable stories circulating on the net purporting to reveal
the truth of human ET visitation and contact. Wading through
these sometimes sensational items is not always easy.  Most are
rather obvious hoaxes, some are very well written and show
considerable creativity, while others often contain a mixture of
truth and fiction that is not easily dismissed.  Most all of them,
however, have one thing in common:  anonymous or unknown sources.
Here is an example of one of the many 'ET revelations' that show
up in our mailbox several times a month...

>From Robert Collins, 6-4-99, <LesMiserable@sprintmail.com>:

The following is an account of the meeting I (the source) was
involved in with EBE-2.

On March 5, 1983, I was at Los Alamos National Laboratories
conducting business on a counterintelligence project.  During
my visit, a source I'll call LANL-1, asked me to sit in on a
very special interview. Not knowing what he was talking about,
I questioned him. However, he wouldn't say exactly what the
project involved or who was being interviewed. I accompanied
LANL-1 to an underground facility west of the Los Alamos
complex.

The area was called, Site 30.  Access to this facility was
gained by entering Area 49.  Access to the underground
facility was through building number 49-2091.

Comments: See URL below for TA49: Notice that Bldg 49-2091
is not labeled on the map as expected: But, from other
information that "White Building" in upper right of map is
the entry to this underground facility.

http://nis-www.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/wthi?ta=49&bldg=113

And, off to the right of TA49 is Complex "A" (Dulce Complex?)
reference URL, http://www.pufori.org/articles/images/lab2.gif

Continuing:  An elevator took us down about 60 feet (only
estimating). Once we arrived, access was gained through a
large vault opening outside the elevator.  We walked down a
hallway to another vault door. We entered and turned right.
We walked about 200 feet turned left and entered vault door
to a large room.  This room contained two tables, several
chairs and recording equipment. I sat near the door.  About
ten minutes later, three people, who I did not know, entered
the room.  One, an Air Force Colonel, asked me to sign a
security document, which gave me an upgraded clearance,
TS/SCI/Group-MJ-B-3/clearance.  I've never heard of this but
I signed. The Colonel told me I was to listen and not make
any sounds during the interview.

I asked the Colonel who was being interviewed and he told me
a guest from another Planet!  The Colonel left.  The other
two people set up a table with a microphone and recording
equipment, including a camera.  About five minutes later, in
walks a 4' 9" non human looking creature. It was dressed in
a tight fitting cream colored suit. It had no hair and was
identified to me as EBE-2.  EBE-2 sat in a chair across the
table from two civilians and the AF Colonel.  I did not know
the identity of the three. LANL-1 came into the room and sat
next to me. I listened while the three asked EBE-2 a series
of questions pertaining to it's home planet.  First question
was about the temperature, climate and weather.  EBE-2
responded in perfect English but sounded like a machine
generated voice.  Very hard to explain but it was either
coming from a device that EBE-2 had in front of him or from
something in it's body.

EBE-2 explained the weather of it's planet which was dry,
varying temperature between 65-90 degrees.  There was 35
hours of constant sunshine and three hours of darkness.
Rainfall occurred only during one of it's months each year.
The day lasted 38 of our hours. They did not have months but
did have years which consisted of approximately 600 of our
days. They used a society cycle which I understood to be
similar to our months. During this society cycle each Eben
worked a certain time and conducted business. There was also
a rest cycle which consisted of a regulated period of sleep.
I don't recall the exact number of hours or sleep/rest.
EBE-2 discussed weather patterns and how they were formed.
I don't recall the exact words. However, EBE-2 seemed very
intelligent and fully explained each weather pattern in
precise detail. He used Earth's equivalents for Meteorology
terms. The interesting part of this interview was that I
didn't hear any questions being asked by the three humans
sitting across from EBE-2. Either the questions were already
given to EBE-2 or the three humans were "thinking the
questions" and EBE-2 would respond in English.

This interview lasted about one hour.  I didn't check my watch
but I estimated from the time I entered the room to the end of
the interview was about 1 hour and 15 minutes.  Considering I
was in the room about 15 minutes before EBE-2 arrived, then I
can estimate the interview to have been 1 hour. When the
interview was completed, EBE-2 stood up and walked to the door.
Just before exiting it looked at me.  I felt a little strange
but I immediately felt happiness!  I can't explain it but I
just felt really at ease, peaceful. EBE-2 didn't smile but he
did make a strange facial expression that I can only assume to
be a smile.  He then left the room. The Colonel then told me I
would be escorted out of the facility by LANL-1.

Former AFOSI Agent
__________

Note - Of course, there is no way to verify this, or countless
other similar stories in cyberspace; all just a part of the
never-ending enigmatic landscape of UFOlogy...

  ___________


* TOP STORIES *

 Just a few of last week's most intriguing!
http://www.jeffrense.com


* Recent Remarkable UFO Sightings In Scotland

* UFOs and JFK - The Conspiracy Question

* Y2K-EU Alarmed About Russian/East Europe Nuclear Power
  Plants

* San Antonio Bees Strike Again - Dogs Killed, Many Stung

* Yugoslavia Will Never Agree To US, British, French, Or
  German Troops

* Fibromyalgia? CFIDS? or Hemochromatosis!?

* Anthrax Catastrophe Brewing On Asian Island?

* Entirely New 'TT' Virus Found In California Blood Donors

* Study Finds Bug Zappers Shower Fly Viruses Into Air

* Two Huge Planets Drifting Alone In Space Found

* Largest British Police Force Told To Limit Cell Phone Use

* Contrail Spraying Continues-More Photos-New Florida Reports

* Plane Circles For Half-Hour As Controller Has Lunch

* UFO Info Direct From Ukraine And Eastern Europe Now Available

* Color Changes In TV Cartoons Cause Seizures-'Pocket Monster'
  Aftermath

* Is Handwriting Truly Individual? Computer Scientists Are
  Finding Out

* NATO's Lengthening List Of Death And Blunders

* US Scientists Believe Sound Can Power Engines

* Clinton Seems Planning For Huge Ground War - 200,000 Medals
  Ordered

* John Whitley First To Expose Bilderberg Agenda Again

* More Puerto Rico Chupacabras Attacks - Fresh UFO Sightings
  Around US

* Israeli Sub Lost In 1968 Found Off Crete - Triggers Suicide

* Great Pyramid To Reopen This Thursday - Photos

* Belgrade Zoo Animals Know When Missiles/Bombs Will Fall


    --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

Don't miss the.... (drum roll please)...

  DISCUSSION FORUM for Rense listeners and subscribers!
  http://www3.bravenet.com/forum/show.asp?userid=hj135985


    --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

 * LISTENER & SUBSCRIBER COMMENTS *

(All are on file)

Zack: cudos to jeff rense and his sightings on the radio show...
i have watched and listened as he has taken this from the end of
the line to a new beginning...he has delivered to us a format
unsurpassed in the medium...as a veteran of internet paranormal
talk-radio i can speak from experience...there is no better
man... no better show...and no one more deserving of our
attention than jeff and his fun, fantastic, and foremost
informative show...if jeff isn't on the pulse of the
provocative, enigmatic, and wondrous areas of information we
seek...well...then it has no heart...good luck to you jeff...and
thanx.

B.J.: I really Enjoy listening to your radio show.  I am an
Arkansas State Policeman and I listen to it while I work.

Gary: This is the most informative and up-to date site I have
ever seen, and Neff is the world's greatest artist with impeccable
musical taste!

Ron: Jeff, if you ever decide on another job, I don't know what the
rest of us would do. . .
 ___________


 * THIS WEEK'S GUESTS *
 6-6-99  thru  6-11-99

(Please note Jeff's Guest schedule can change due to late breaking
stories, etc)

SUN 6-6
Alan Vaughn: Renowned Psychic's Millennial Predicitons
LIVE From England: Tim Matthews:  Human Engineered UFOs
MON 6-7
Rayelan (Russbacher) Allan: The War For World Control
TUE 6-8
Steve Allen: The Dumbing Of America
WED 6-9
Michael Lindemann: Weekly UFO/World Update
Doreen Virtue:  Divine Guidance - Talking To Angels
THU 6-10
Beatrice Trum Hunter: Labeling The Poisons In Our Food
FRI 6-11
Brad Steiger: Hear Ghosts Recorded On Tape!

Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives: http://www.jeffrense.com

   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

 We've added NEW BOOKS!

   Exclusives, hard to find and reprints:

 http://www.immunotex.com/books/

   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

* PROGRAM INFORMATION *

Program Show Times
   Live Coast-To-Coast
   Monday-Friday 7-10pm Pacific 10-1am Eastern
   Sundays 8-11pm Pacific 11-2am Eastern
Call in Line:
   800 850-5043
Program Transcripts at
   http://www.immunotex.com/rense/
Program Audio Tapes
   888 456-4340
Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives
   http://www.jeffrense.com
Advertising
   Over 3 MILLION visitors to sightings.com - Cost
   effective exposure for YOUR product or service,
   mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=Advertising
Sightings.com info/email center
   http://www.jeffrense.com/1.mail/infocenter.html
Jeff Rense Y2K RESOURCE CENTER
   http://www.jeffrense.com/y2kresource/y2k1r.html
RenseWorld! Don't miss it! http://www.jeffrense.com

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Share with your friends!
   Please feel free to forward this issue of the Jeff Rense Weekly
   E-Newsletter to any and all who are interested... but please
   forward in its entirety and do not modify it in any fashion
   without permission. Thank you!
Past issues are archived at http://www.immunotex.com/rense/

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

To subscribe:
mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=SUBSCRIBE_RENSE

To unsubscribe:
mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE_RENSE

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

Jeff Rense Weekly E-News is independently produced by ImmunoTex
in cooperation with Jeff Rense. The material and views expressed
herein do not necessarily reflect those of Jeff Rense,
sightings.com, or the Jeff Rense - Sightings Radio Program,
except for the *From Jeff's Desk* segment.

--<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

"I will call the Sirens from the sea, and ye Lilin, come ye from
the desert, and ye Shedim and dragons from the forests..."
 The Apocalypse of Baruch, 10:8

________________________________________________________________

Looking for Brad & Sherry Steiger books?
http://www.immunotex.com/books/steiger.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:08:20 PDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:06:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

[Greg's message reproduced in its entirety - it _was_ five weeks ago --ebk]


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 11:04:37 -0400

>>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:04:47 -0500
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: Glenn Joyner <infohead@airmail.net>
>>Subject: Black's Open Letter to Friedman

>>My name is Jerry Black, and I will now state, for the record, my
>>position on the UFO topic.

><snip>

>Am I the only one who never wants to read another word from Jerry
>Black?

>Since I'm one of Budd Hopkins's many friends, I suppose Black
>might think I'm on his case because he got on Budd's, in his
>latest missive. But in fact I lost it with him when I read his
>latest Whitley Strieber attack, and I have no brief for Strieber
>at all. I decided to write this note after reading the first few
>paragraphs of his assault on Stan Friedman, long before I got to
>the part about Budd.

>My thoughts about Black are very simple. He's hardly the first
>to raise questions about the Gulf Breeze case, or about
>Strieber. He does, though, set new records for stultifying
>self-righteousness, barely concealing a resentment that borders
>on rage.

>And he doesn't seem to know the difference between a valid
>argument, an absurdity, and an ad hominem attack. It's absurd,
>for instance, for him to condemn MUFON, the entire organization,
>in part because he went to one function 20 years ago, and didn't
>like what he heard. And it's certainly an ad hominen attack when
>he talks about Stan Friedman's personality. Flamboyance, in
>Jerry Black's eyes, seems to be a kind of crime, prima facie
>evidence, all by itself, that the flamboyant person is only

>Finally, Black isn't, to put it mildly, very well informed about
>some of the subjects he discusses. For one quick example, take
>this:

>>Mr. William G. Hyzer informed me that the
>>technology today is as such that anyone who has a computer and
>>the money can make a UFO photograph that no one would ever be
>>able to detect as being a hoax.

>I might note, in passing, Black's exaggerated, almost obsequious
>respect for Hyzer, who may well be a worthy professional in his
>field, but surely isn't the fount of unerring wisdom Black makes
>him out to be. Nobody, nobody at all, is _that_ good.

>But this statement about computer imagery is, first, not
>remarkable, because it's something you hear all the time,
>without having to consult Hyzer or anyone else. Second, it's
>wrong. Computer-faked images will show subtle signs of fakery,
>if you closely examine them (and, of course, if you have a deep
>knowledge of computer graphics). We've discussed that on this
>list many times. But Black propounds his notion (or Hyzer's) in
>the same tone of a self-righteous oracle that he uses throughout
>his broadsides. He makes no distinction between things he might
>know something about, and other areas, like this one, in which
>he hasn't a clue.

>Enough. I don't care whether I agree with Black, or disagree
>with him, about the many points he raises in his open letters.
>But I'm offended enough by his tone to feel I should say
>something.

Mr. Sandow, if you keep your word [which I doubt that you will
do] then there should be no response from you concerning this
message that I am writing, which is in response to your comments
regarding my 'Open Letter to Stan Friedman'.

First of all, I take issue with your words that I 'attacked'
Whitley Strieber. I wrote Mr. Strieber back in January after
reviewing his numerous books for over four months and stating to
him some of the problems I had with what his books had to say. A
contactee, as you may or may not be aware, has given UFOlogists
repeated opportunities to investigate their cases first-hand in
terms of staying overnight or setting up motion-detection
equipment or other related instruments. Mr. Strieber stayed on
the 'offensive' against UFO investigators in the beginning, so
this could obviously not be accomplished. I think that was
purposefully done. Mr. Strieber has nothing else to offer as
proof of his experience with the visitors. In fact, there was
alot of things in Mr. Strieber's books that he was trying to
impress people that his stories are real when common sense and
logic dictate that these things are not true. I stated those in
my original letter.

My second letter was to Mr. Whitley Strieber two months later -
after he obviously ignored my previous letter and refused to
take the third-party, properly sponsored polygraph test [that I
agreed to give him at my expense, by the way], and you feel this
was an attack on Whitley Strieber. Don't you know the difference
between an attack and a report?

I'm sorry that you don't seem to approve of the tone or the way
I write my letters. That is your problem, not mine. I write my
letters honestly and openly, and very much to the point.

I'm also very sorry that you are a friend of Budd Hopkins and
cannot separate your friendship from Budd Hopkins and your
objectivity in terms of his ineptness as a UFO researcher and
investigator.

Mr. Budd Hopkins has demonstrated throughout the past twenty
years that he is not - I repeat, NOT - a UFO investigator [or
researcher]. He is basically a UFO reporter. And for those such
as Jerome Clark, Mark Cashman and yourself who do not like that
because you are friends with Budd Hopkins -- TOO BAD. His record
speaks for itself. The ludicrous book, "Witnessed," is just that
-- ludicrous. It has no basis of objectivity whatsoever. Your
good friend, Mr. Budd Hopkins, does not believe in polygraph
tests. How convenient.

What Mr. Budd Hopkins has done, not only in the "Intruders" book
[with Kathy Davis] and the book "Witnessed" with [Linda
Cortile], has only reported on what they have told him. He has
done no research or investigation whatsoever.

If Mr. Budd Hopkins lived next door to me, we could be very good
friends. I have no problems with Budd Hopkins as a good person
in the community. My problem with Budd Hopkins and others in the
UFO community are how they handle themself in the UFO field.

Mr. Sandow, you also refer to William G. Hyzer, and I might add,
his son James B. Hyzer [who also worked on the Ed Walters/Gulf
Breeze pictures], and stated that I have put my total trust in
them, and that nobody could be as good as them. But the real
issue is that nobody could be as BAD as Bruce Maccabbee.

In Mr. Hyzer's preliminary report of the ten pictures that he
was given, which included photograph #18 [the famous
"road-shot"], he stated that "ALL" of the pictures showed
indications of double-exposure. He could not prove at that
particular time that any one of those photographs were
absolutely hoaxed, but all showed signs of double-exposure. To
the contrary, Mr. Bruce Maccabbee and Mr. Jeff Sainio, not only
in all their vocal support given at symposiums during this time
frame, and through all their reports they wrote, never ONCE had
a negative comment to make regarding the pictures. So we are to
assume, sir, if we adhere to your theory, that Mr. Hyzer made
TEN mistakes on all of these pictures, and Mr. Bruce Maccabbee
is correct.

Mr. Hyzer had no ax to grind, whatsoever. Mr. Jeff Sainio and
Mr. Bruce Maccabbee obviously did, or we could assume that Mr.
Maccabbee is not the great and professional photo-analyst that
we have been led to believe in the past.

This is the first time that I am aware of that Mr. Bruce
Maccabbee has been confronted with an independent photo-analyst
of the quality of Mr. Hyzer, working on the same project. And it
appears to me that we, in the past, have been misled by
believing Mr. Bruce Maccabbee's professional experience in
photographic analysis was much greater than it obviously is. So
yes, I have a great deal of trust in Mr. William G. Hyzer, and
if you take the time to look on my web-site, you will see a
whole page providing you with Mr. Hyzer's background.

If you wish to believe Mr. Bruce Maccabbee over Mr. William
Hyzer, possibly because of your friendship, that is your
problem.

The photographic evidence speaks very clearly for itself. Any of
the pictures that Mr. Bruce Maccabbee claims would be so hard
for Ed Walters to produce, Mr. Hyzer has already shown how HALF
of them could be re-produced very easily with a minimal amount
of experience. He expressed one of these theories in "Photo
Methods" magazine.

If we are to believe Mr. Bruce Maccabbee, he claims that Ed
Walters was a complete idiot in terms of photographic knowledge.
Here is a man, sir, when divorced, was worth 2.5 million
dollars. Idiots do not make 2.5 million dollars.

Mr. Rex Salisbury, in his interview with numerous young people
who were familiar with Ed's son and his family, said that every
time they had seen Ed, he had a camera around his neck.  Mr. Ed
Walters was very well-versed in the camera that he used. He had
quite a bit of experience with it, he was a camera BUFF. But if
you wish to believe Mr. Bruce Maccabbee, who said he was an
'idiot with a camera,' that, again, is your problem. The
evidence doesn't show this.

Also, you make mention of my condemnation of MUFON, the entire
organization. Sir, you didn't read that correctly. I stated that
when I was at the MUFON symposium in 1978, I heard the word "I"
expressed so many times I could've bought my wife a mansion if I
could have $100.00 for each one that said "I." There were many
people there from MUFON, but there were also people there from
other organizations, such as APRO and other groups in
attendance. This is not reflecting upon the entire MUFON
organization. Certainly I think Walt Andrus is a disgrace to the
MUFON organization -- PERIOD. Mr. Walt Andrus has never been a
UFO investigator and never will be. He is strictly an
administrator, and should assume that position and let someone
else take over the reigns of the MUFON organization -- without
question. I have many friends in the MUFON organization, Mr. Tom
Duley is one, Mr. William Jones, who was State Director for
Ohio, is another, I have alot of respect for Mr. Dan Wright...
so I was not condemning the entire Mutual UFO Network. You, sir,
stand corrected on that.

And finally, you stated that I am not the first one to raise
questions about the Gulf Breeze case or Whitley Strieber. It's
not just a matter of raising questions. Sure, Mr. Jerome Clarke
and yourself may raise questions, but was has been done about
it? Have his books been reviewed? Has anyone offered Mr.
Strieber a polygraph test? As far as I know, this is the first
third-party polygraph test that Mr. Strieber has ever been asked
to take. The same with Gulf Breeze: I didn't just stand aside
and say "I think there's a problem here..." I spent over four
years, sir, researching and investigating [along with Rex
Salisbury and Barbara Becker] the entire Gulf Breeze episode,
almost at the expense of losing my wife because I was so
involved with it.

Don't tell me that I just bring up questions. I don't just
'bring up questions.' I take action.

JERRY BLACK
6276 Taylor Pike
Blanchester, Ohio 45105
513-625-2613

E-mail: blackhole60@hotmail.com
Website: http://members.xoom.com/blackshole/







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 04:19:27 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:23:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


Regarding:

>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

Bruce wrote:

>>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>Regarding Arnold's _first_ sighting... which has been the
>subject of my discussion.... there is no assumption that Arnold
>was "absolutely incapable of human error." Anyone who thinks
>there was such an assumption does not understand the nature of
>the analysis. In fact, the arguments assume that Arnold could
>have been in error in some places.


Bruce,

Surely it's not debatable whether Kenneth Arnold "could" have
been in error in "some" places, that fact is acknowledged and
highlighted in your paper - 'The Complete Sighting Report of
Kenneth Arnold, with Comments and Analysis'.

>But, let's get down to the crux of the matter: which Arnold
>statements would you like to reject or modify?

We could start with those you have previously accepted!


>1) Arnold says he saw flashes of sunlight on his plane. Did he
>or didn't he? What did he see?

So far as I can see, this claim didn't surface until Arnold's
much later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers'.


>2) Arnold said the initial flashes came from an area north of
>Mt. Rainier. Did he perhaps get the direction wrong, or is there
>something else?

Did Arnold state this before it was claimed in his book, or did
he originally and consistently say the objects were first seen
over the slopes of Mount Rainier, for example:

'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian - June 26, 1947'

"Mr. Arnold reported he was flying east at 2:50 p.m. Tuesday
toward Mt. Rainier when the objects appeared directly in front of
him 25-30 miles away at about 10,000 feet altitude".


'Norman, Oklahoma Transcript - June 26, 1947'

"Arnold said the strange aircraft were skittering across the
southwest slope of Mount Rainier when he first sighted them".


'Oregon Journal - June 27, 1947'

"Arnold, general manager and owner of the Great Western Fire
Control Company, said he first saw the objects when they flashed
in the sun low over the slopes of Mt. Rainier".


>3) Arnold thought the objects were a little higher than he was
>(9,500 ft, vs his 9,200). What do you think the TRUE altitude
>was, if you don't accept Arnold's statement?

>From your detailed analysis, I thought you had determined, "it
appears that they were lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold
overestimated their altitude".

Further quoting from your research:

"These statements about how they flew with respect to the
mountain peaks are very important because they provide
information on the distance from Mr. Arnold. These mountain peaks
lie along a wide north-south line extending southward from Mt.
Rainier to Mt. Adams. These peaks were about 20 miles east of
Arnold at the time. These statements also provide the altitude of
the objects. To Arnold they appeared to be approximately at his
altitude because they seemed to be 'pretty much on the horizon to
me.' Since he was flying at 9,200 ft, this implies that they were
close to that altitude. (Arnold actually stated his letter that
they were at 9,500 ft.) However, the mountain peaks south of
Rainier generally are 5,000 to 7,000 ft high, with the higher
ones being farther away (more to the east) from Arnold. Hence his
statement that there were higher peaks on the far side of the
pathway indicates that the objects were definitely lower than
about 7,000 ft".

"Is it reasonable to assume that he could have made an error of
several thousand feet in estimating their altitude? The answer to
this question lies in the fact that Arnold inferred the altitude
by observing that the objects appeared to be almost exactly on
his horizon (i.e., level with his altitude). But it is very
difficult to determine the exact horizon from an airplane. In
this case, the angle (the "depression angle") between exact
horizontal and his downward sighting line to the mountain peaks
south of Mt. Rainier was very small. The depression angle from
Arnold's plane at 9,200 ft altitude to the top of a 5,500 ft high
mountain at a distance of 20 miles (105,600 ft) was about 20.
Such a small angle would be difficult to detect from an airplane.
So the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of 4,000
ft in estimating the altitude of the objects. Perhaps if he had
looked up the actual altitudes of the mountain peaks south of Mt
Rainier he would have revised his statement".


>4) Arnold described them as "flipping and flashing". If this is
>not what he saw, then what do you think he saw?

He also described them as "fluttering and sailing". Would you
disagree that's consistent with birds and far removed from a
'craft'?


>5)Arnold claimed he looked at his dashboard clock when the first
>one passed Mt. Rainier.... Did he get the time wrong? If so, by
>how much?

Although I can't see it's significant, curiously, he also claimed
the timing was taken on his watch:

'Chicago Daily Tribune - June 25, 1947'

"I took out my watch and checked off one minutes and 42 seconds
from the time they passed Mount Rainier***".


'Norman, Oklahoma Transcript - June 26, 1947'

"I clocked them with a stop watch during the time it took them to
fly from Mount Rainer to Mount Adams".


The question is, if Kenneth Arnold's estimate of the objects'
altitude was in error by some 4,000-5,000 feet - in which case
the objects were only flying at about half the altitude he
thought - then how can we have any confidence in his other
perceptions?

If that was so grossly mistaken, as evidenced in your analysis,
then it MUST affect all related judgements and estimates.


>6) Arnold looked again at the clock as the last one passed
>Rainier.... did he get the time wrong? If so, by how much?

The timing isn't an issue, it's whether the objects were perhaps
much closer than he guessed.

Obviously the closer these objects actually were, the faster they
would appear to travel between two distant, fixed points.


>7) Arnold said he turned the plane sideways and looked through
>his open window. At this time he would have been flying south,
>parallel to the objects. Was he wrong/lying?

In that early radio interview, he claimed, "I turned the plane
around and opened the window".

When he turned his plane "around" it was during the timing
exercise and we don't know if he changed direction by 90 degrees,
180 degrees, or something else.

What effect might the change of direction have had on his
perception of the objects' speed and respective distances between
them, his plane and the mountains?


>The analysis of the Arnold sighting has been carried out with
>the fulfill realization that Arnold could have been wrong on
>some fine points. But to get a conventional explanation one has
>to assume Arnold was wrong on some major points.

Isn't this the conclusion of your own critique?

As you remarked:

"So the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of
4,000 ft in estimating the altitude of the objects"

How can that be a "fine point"?


Has that analysis examined what Kenneth Arnold reported to the
press in the days following his sighting?

I've been looking at this and note, for example, that the
'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian' newspaper on 26 June reported,
"Mr. Arnold admitted the angle from which he viewed the objects
would make difficult precise estimation of their speed...".


>If you are going to "complain" that Arnold wasn't perfect, then
>specify where you think he was wrong and we can argue over
>whether or not it makes sense in the context of the sighting to
>assume he was wrong..

I trust some relevevant points are cited above.


Kenneth Arnold's original story is a relatively simple tale.

He observed nine reflective objects which at first he thought
were geese, because their flight characteristics were similar.

Arnold then dismised this possibility as the objects appeared to
be travelling too fast, concluding they must instead be
airplanes.

Yet Arnold never seems to raise any objections to the objects
being birds, other than the perceived airspeed. Even in
subsequent interviews, he doesn't rule out the prospect due to
what we might have assumed the most obvious conclusion - that
birds wouldn't be visible if the objects were truly some 20-30
miles distant.

Arnold then decided to take this opportunity to 'clock' the
airspeed of the 'planes'.

It's perhaps crucial to appreciate that Arnold only decided to
carry out this exercise because, as he says in the radio
interview, "I just thought I'd see how fast they were going,
since among pilots we argue about speed so much".

It wasn't a result of Arnold believing the airplanes were
travelling at an incredible speed. He only concluded that after
first carrying out a timing between two prominent landmarks and
then later calculating how far apart those landmarks were in
conjunction with the 'stop watch' reading.

As he timed the objects' - believed to be airplanes - what then
surprised him was a realisation that they didn't have any
'tails'.

However, as Arnold related, he didn't give either this or the
apparently fast airspeed too much thought at the time.

Consequently, he worked out that the distance between the two
fixed points was some 50 miles and that if the objects had
travelled that distance, as he thought, in the 1 minute and
forty seconds recorded, they must have been travelling at an
unprecedented speed.


If, as you explained in the detailed analysis, Arnold's estimate
of the objects' altitude was grossly mistaken and that when he
apparently turned his plane around during this timing exercise,
we don't know if he changed direction by 90, or 180 degrees, or
something else, then consequently, there can be surely be no
confidence in his overall perceptions.

Obviously the closer these 'fluttering' objects actually were,
the faster they would appear to travel between two distant fixed
points.


When logic kicks in and we consider that the observation was
wholly subjective, has proven misconceptions and that Kenneth
Arnold reported a subsequent sighting with similar
characteristics and which was almost certainly of birds... at
what point does this remotely become sustainable evidence of
'alien spacecraft'?


James.
E-mail: voyager@ukonline.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:18:23 PDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:30:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 17:41:05 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

>>Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 07:38:12 -0400
>>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

>>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>>>Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 11:04:37 -0400

>>>Enough. I don't care whether I agree with Black, or disagree
>>>with him, about the many points he raises in his open letters.
>>>But I'm offended enough by his tone to feel I should say
>>>something.

>>Please look beyond the 'tone' and scrutinize the _substance_ of
>>what Mr. Black has to offer. It would be a mistake to assume
>>such a dismissive approach to his comments, as many have
>>repeatedly sought to do.

>Kenny -

>You are a serious investigator, and I have always appreciated
>your approach to cases.

>However, I am sure that you know that polemic such as that
>produced by Mr. Black is not the way to generate any sort of
>improvement in UFOlogy. Personally, I believe he does make, on
>occasion, valid points. However, they are not typically points
>which have not been made by someone else, much more courteously,
>elsewhere.

>Even if Walters and Strieber are the charlatans that Black
>claims, stridency is not the way to alter their impact on
>ufology. In regard to the Gulf Breeze case, if Mr. Black would
>like to demonstrate with appropriate science, and in a
>reasonable, objective tone, how to account for the following, he
>will be doing us all a service:

>1) How the obscuration of the object in Photo 1 and Photo 7 has
>been accomplished. Double exposure, even with the Hyzer method,
>has been experimentally discredited.

>2) That the light return from objects apparently at the distant
>edge of the flash is what would be expected from a model at a
>particular distance (for instance, Photo 13, Photo 16, Photo 23,
>Photo 35 all have foreground objects whose comparative light
>return would make that analysis simpler).

>3) That Photo 37L and R, which show that the object is obscured
>by a tree branch in one stereo frame, can be explained with
>models and mathematics within Walters' competence. It must be
>accounted for that the calculated size of the object is
>consistent with that in other stereo photos taken with other
>equipment at other times, and with non-stereo photos with
>reference points, such as the road shot.

>4) That Walters possessed sufficient knowledge to successfully
>and consistently spoof stereo photos so that the calculated
>diameter would remain consistent with that estimated from other
>images (including the road shot).

>5) That Photo 38L and R would be possible to create such that
>the resulting images be consistent with the Nimslo photo results
>(this requiring models to be suspended tens of feet above the
>water 100 or more feet from the shore) for two completely
>different objects of widely different sizes and yet have the
>resulting measurments be consistent with other photos taken
>under other conditions, including the other stereo photos taken
>by Walters.

>6) How the various videotapes could be hoaxed.

>8) How and where Walters was able to construct and test and
>photograph complex lighted models without anyone's knowledge.

>9) That Walters had the knowledge, the skills and the tools to
>create and photograph such models.

>10) That he had the mathematical knowledge to spoof the stereo
>photos or that such could be done by chance.

>11) That Walters' family was in on the hoax.

>12) Walters' motivation for the hoax.

>One of the problems with Black's discussion of Gulf Breeze (to
>take an example with which I am most familiar) is that he does
>not seem aware that most of these are issues. The characteristic
>of the scientific approach is best expressed by the section that
>appears in every scientific paper: related work. In that
>section, the author of a paper shows his understanding of the
>work done by the others in the field on the same problem and
>demonstrates why his approach is better. Black does not seem to
>properly counterpoint the important portions of the work done by
>Sanio or Maccabee, nor does he seem to realize or acknowledge
>the weakness of some parts of the Hyzer analysis.

>Now none of the above require discussion of Believer Bill, or
>the model found years later in the old Walters house, or any of
>the disputable testimony. These are simple qualitative or
>investigative requirements - and of those, the qualitative tests
>are of the most interest because they are reproducible on demand
>and are not subjective in nature.

>Understand - I am not a Gulf Breeze or Streiber partisan. I have
>many problems with Gulf Breeze, and I have even more problems
>with Streiber's case. I haven't devoted a lot of time to
>Strieber because, frankly, it seems to me he offers very little
>to work with that is not ambiguous, while Gulf Breeze is not
>ambiguous at all and offers all of the material needed for
>quantitative analysis. Of course, of the two, Strieber has
>certainly had a much more profound social effect.

>But, at any rate, I keep my mind open on Gulf Breeze because the
>above points have not been dealt with to my satisfaction, and,
>until they are, I have no choice but to leave the case open. And
>Mr. Black can attack everyone involved in the case as much as he
>wants, but _until_ all of the above points have been addressed
>to my satisfaction, why should I change my mind? If Bruce's
>analysis is flawed, I believe he will be receptive to the proof
>- I know I am. If Jeff Sanio's analysis is flawed, he should
>also be receptive to the proof. And if Hyzer's analysis is
>flawed, there should be some sign that Mr. Black is receptive to
>the notion.

>Quiet, carefully reasoned, qualitatively backed analysis means a
>lot more to me than any polygraph test, paid for by someone else
>or not. And certainly Mr. Black's attitude does nothing to
>generate confidence in me that the results he will bring forward
>are any more objective than those he denounces.


Mr. Mark Cashman;

I wanted to take this time to thank you for responding to Kenny
Young�s remarks. Firstly, I appreciate his support, but do not
need it. I am sorry if you and a few others do not like the tone
of my letters.

My letters were simply investigative letters to Mr. Whitley
Strieber in response to his �lack of response� regarding my
invitation to have him take a third-party polygraph test
financed at my own expense. I am trying to show people that when
his books are read, there is much to be desired in terms of
believability once you get past the fantastic ability that Mr.
Strieber has in putting words on paper. There has been no
evidence whatsoever to support Whitley Strieber�s case -and
there should be, because he is/was an alleged contactee. We
don�t expect that from people like the three women from Casey
County, Kentucky who, in 1976, had one experience only. But when
you deal with contactee�s such as Billy Meier, George Adamski
and Daniel Frye - we expect more. Certainly I do.  Mr. Whitley
Strieber made sure that all the investigators were kept at bay
and unable to perform an analysis by staying overnight or
throughout a weekend to view what he was seeing when he had
these supposed encounters with �The Visitors.� Motion picture
cameras, motion detection equipment, audio tapes... all could
have been set up in Mr. Strieber�s home to try to get this
information on audio or videotape. It was never done because Mr.
Strieber did not allow it. His books certainly do not prove
anything whatsoever. That he allowed his son to come out is a
major strike against the believability of his claim, having the
child put in that dangerous peril that he claims was present
there.

Also, your remarks about Gulf Breeze are well taken. I will be
making a final report on Gulf Breeze in which I will show you
and any objective person that all the pictures that were taken
by Mr. Ed Walters could have -and were- taken by him in a hoaxed
manner. Mr. Bruce Maccabbee, again, has sought to make it appear
as if Ed Walters was a complete idiot with a camera. However, I
have learned -along with investigator Rex Salisbury- from
talking with kids in the neighborhood who frequented the Walters
house quite often, that whenever you saw Ed, you saw a camera
around his neck. We have four youngsters who will testify [and
who DID testify] to Rex Salisbury and his wife Carol, that Ed
Walters would double-expose Polaroid film and play tricks on
them. For instance, he would take a picture of a reflection in
the mirror and leave the picture in the camera and take another
picture of one of the girls and say: �I wonder which one of you
will have the spirits behind you tonight?� It would obviously be
the first photograph that he would take, and when he pulled the
picture out, there would be a strange reflection situated behind
the girl.

So we know for a fact that Ed Walter�s was a camera buff, unlike
what Mr. Bruce Maccabbee tries to portray. And when you try to
use the expertise of Mr. Bruce Maccabbee against Mr. William G.
Hyzer and his son, you are talking about apples and oranges.
There is NO comparison -NONE- between the abilities of Mr.
William G. Hyzer and his son James in contrast to Mr. Bruce
Maccabbee and Mr. Jeff Sainio. PERIOD.

I will show in my report how the rest of the case, including
photograph #19, just does not hold up. There is not one piece of
evidence [although Bruce Maccabbee strangely states there are
many] that will substantiate this Ed Walters case. There is
nothing.

A lot of times when you have people perpetrate hoaxes, such as
[in my opinion] Ed Walters, Whitley Strieber, etc., they always
try to rely on other people�s stories or sightings to confirm
their own. That is exactly what both men have done. You cannot,
as an objective investigator, accept testimony from another
person because they say they saw an object which looks similar
to Ed�s, and say �that makes Ed�s real.� When you have a
nationally publicized case, you are bound to have people come
out of the woodwork, as we�ve had on every nationally exposed
case, and say that they also saw something very similar. To give
you a quick example, Mr. Art Hufford, one of the MUFON
investigators on the Gulf Breeze case, saw an object during the
daylight for twenty seconds. He drew that object and went around
on national TV [I heard him at least twice] and said to Ed
Walters: �I saw something exactly like what you saw.� But if you
look at Art Hufford�s drawings, there are no portholes or
windows in Mr. Hufford�s UFO. Does it have a similar shape?
Somewhat, but there are no windows or portholes. So obviously,
contrary to what Art Hufford told the national media, he did not
see the same object that Ed Walter�s allegedly photographed
[which shows portholes and windows]. Since he was caught and
this was brought to his attention by myself and other
investigators, he later stated that �there may have been
windows, but I didn�t see any.� So contrary to popular belief,
Art Hufford did not EVER see the same object that Ed Walters
photographed.

I will be issuing a final Gulf Breeze report, and challenging
Bruce Maccabbee and Jeff Sainio on photograph #19 to back up
their claims. The crux of photograph 19 is that Mr. Hyzer claims
there is no luminosity projecting downward from the object,
which there should be due to light bouncing off the hard
surface. Mr. Jeff Sainio claims, just by looking at his first
generation copy, that he can see the luminosity on the road -not
with instruments, but with the naked eye. Don�t you find it
unusual that Sainio can assert this while Hyzer cannot detect
this using the most sophisticated equipment that is the best in
the business? You sir, have to determine who is telling the
truth and who is not. Who has an ax to grind, and who doesn�t,
Mr. Cashman.

I will be offering Mr. Bruce Maccabbee and challenge that he
should not be able to refuse. If he does, then he shows me very
clearly that he has been blowing smoke all these years. That
challenge will be issued in my final report on Gulf Breeze.

If you would like to call me sir, I can go over some of these
issues privately with you and have no problem with that, and
would more than happy to do that for you Mr. Cashman, to show
you where exactly that Mr. Bruce Maccabbee keeps leading people
astray, and what the true facts are on Gulf Breeze. Some of the
things you will be seeing in my report have obviously not been
made public by the MUFON organization, because they do not want
this case to be exposed as the hoax it is [because they ran with
it prematurely].

Thank you for your time, I hope to hear from you.

Jerry Black
6276 Taylor Pike
Blanchester, OH 45107

513-625-2613
E-mail: blackhole60@hotmail.com
Website: http://members.xoom.com/blackshole/





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                         Larry Hatch Away For A Week

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 23:16:11 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:25:55 -0400
Subject: Larry Hatch Away For A Week


Dear list:

I will be away for a week starting today (Saturday 05 June).

Please continue sending messages with the understanding that I
cannot reply rebut or anything else.

I will be in Boston for a day looking for that famous bar from
the long running Cheers sitcom among other things... the one
that doesn't serve Gripple.

The rest is work. (Ugh!)

' Til later,  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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 00:53:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:28:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

>Regarding Arnold's _first_ sighting... which has been the subject
>of my discussion.... there is no assumption that Arnold was
>"absolutely incapable of human error." Anyone who thinks there
>was such an assumption does not understand the nature of the
>analysis. In fact, the arguments assume that Arnold could have
>been in error in some places. But, let's get down to the crux
>of the matter: which Arnold statements would you like to reject
>or modify?

Bruce,

Well, let's do get down to the crux of the matter. Since neither
you nor I were in the cockpit with Arnold on that fateful day,
neither of us have any idea as to how accurate, or inaccurate,
he was in his perceptions. My point was simply that you and
Rudiak can make any kind of calculations you want and they
remain essentially meaningless in real world terms. They could
well be right -- and they could well be off by who knows what
exponential factor. My point was that we don't _know_. And for
you and Rudiak to suggest otherwise -- as if the case were
automatically solved in non-conventional terms -- is simply
wishful thinking on both your parts.

>1) Arnold says he saw flashes of sunlight on his plane. Did he
>or didn't he? What did he see?

I have no idea, since I wasn't there at the time, but neither do
you. But if the objects were a good 20 miles or more away, as
Arnold claimed, then I seriously doubt whether he could have
discerned "flashes of sunlight on his plane." He might have seen
light flashing off distant small objects, which is altogether a
different thing.

<snip>

Your other questions can be addressed in similar fashion. Where
was Arnold wrong in a specific instance? I don't know. Where was
Arnold right in a specific instance? You don't know, and neither
does David Rudiak.

<snip>

>The skeptic assumption is that Arnold was wrong in one or more
>of his descriptive details. For example, that Arnold
>overestimated the distance. But he said the objects were going
>in and out of mountain peaks which were about 20 miles away. Was
>he wrong?

I don't know. Do you? My question was, what if he was wrong?

>Clearly if the details can be modified "at will" any sighting
>can be explained. The analysis of the Arnold sighting has been
>carried out with the fulfill realization that Arnold could have
>been wrong on some fine points. But to get a conventional
>explanation one has to assume Arnold was wrong on some major
>points.

So? How do you presume to know that he wasn't wrong on some maor
points?

>If you are going to "complain" that Arnold wasn't perfect, then
>specify where you think he was wrong and we can argue over
>whether or not it makes sense in the context of the sighting to
>assume he was wrong..
>

Sorry, Bruce, can't do. For all I know, he could have been wrong in
general. A little more than a month after his original sighting, he claimed
another one of small objects, 3-5 ft. in diameter, numbering a couple of
dozen or more. If you or Rudiak would like to exercise your mathematical
abilities on this case, you're perfectly welcome to. In fact, I wish you
would.

A few years later, in 1952, Arnold claimed to have filmed two UFOs, one of
which could be seen through, and which apparently led him to conclude that
UFOs were living objects. Arnold would go on to claim several more
sightings in his lifetime. Lucky dude, eh?

Have you seen the film Arnold claimed to have taken on this
occasion? Neither have I. Odd that he didn't make it publicly
and readily available, isn't it, as it would have surely proved,
or at least supported,  his earlier claim.

>>You, Maccabee and others can mathematically analyze Arnold's
>>original statements all you want, or until Hell freezes over,
>>whichever comes first. And it doesn't mean a goddamn thing unless
>>you think he was absolutely dead on and incapable of any error
>>in perception whatever.

>Not very clever remark. Sounds "whiney"

Sorry, we can't be clever 24 hours a day, can we?

>>Now explain how Miracle Man, i.e., Arnold, came to believe that
>>UFOs were living organisms.

>>Troubling, isn't it?

>Perhaps, but so what?

>When the _interpretation_ is separated from the _observation_
>and the _observation_ is analyzed, the witness' suggestion as to
>the _interpretation_ becomes irrelevant.

It's late here, so I'm not going to address the above statement
in any detail. If you had it to do over, though, I think you
would have put it differently.

>You seem to be saying that because Arnold in later years
>concluded saucers were animals, that therefore one can't believe
>the observational details in his first sighting.

>Sorry, I don't buy it..

Well, something of the sort, although it's not quite as
straightforward as that. I simply have reservations about
Arnold's first sighting that are serious enough to lead me to
wonder whether or not they are worthy of the mathematical
calculations you and Rudiak have devoted to same, in light of
some other statements by Arnold.

Such as his second sighting, little more than a month later, and
his claim of having filmed a living, transparent UFO in 1952.
(See my response to Jerry Clark for additional details.) Have
you ever seen this film? Wouldn't you admit that, if it exists,
it would prove much more evidential than anything Arnold had to
_say_ about his earlier June, 1947, sighting?

So where is the Arnold film that would obviate anything he had
to say about his 1947 sighting? Wouldn't it save you and Rudiak
some serious calculus? But what if there isn't any such film?

I trust you or Rudiak will get back to us on this matter post
haste. After all, why mathematically analyze Arnold's claims
when you could be mathematically analyzing his film?

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 01:14:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:34:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 10:23:58 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

<snip>

>Dennis-

>Have you really become so frustrated with the "genre" that you
>have to resort to this type of posting?  The subjects you raise
>have all been argued to death on this list (and others) and you
>throw them out as bait to begin those arguements anew.  The
>worst part of it is that you lump them all together, in spite of
>the fact that the provenance of each is so vastly different,
>which is a tactic used by CISCOP.

>Personally, I'd rather be reading discussions about the issues
>at hand, rather than discussions about the discussions.

>Steve


Uh, Steve,

Actually my most recent posts were in respone to David Rudiak
calling James Easton bird-brained, to which I took exception on
general principle and called him bird-brained back.

While you may not have appreciated them, the questions I asked
Rudiak were direct and to the point. As one of the more
vociferous online supporters of the ET crash at Roswell theory,
I simply wanted him to follow up his "logic."

He's so good at pontificating about what did and didn't land
near Roswell that I hoped he would share his bountiful knowledge
about same with the rest of us mere mortals, clueing us in to as
how many UFOs actually crashed, where and when, how many bodies
were retrieved therefrom, where they were sent, when MJ-12 was
organized, by whom and when, who it consisted of and so on. Oh,
yes, and by the way, how much of that Corso crap did he
subscribe to?

Sorry you aren't interested in answers to same. But not to
worry: Rudiak doesn't have any.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                                 Resignation

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 13:05:55 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:48:49 -0400
Subject: Resignation


Effective June 4, 1999, I have resigned from the Intruders
Foundation Action Committee as a result of personal
considerations.  This is my decision and has little to do with
the actions taken by other members except the coincidence of
timing.

Budd has my word that he may depend on me for any assistance on
a personal level.  What little I've done, remains with him, a
true researcher and gentleman.  It's my way of saying thanks
for his help to crazy people all over the world who think
they've been abducted by lizards.

You're better off without lizard spawn and Gripple drinkers,
Budd.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                            Alfred's Odd Ode #306

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 05:53:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:39:50 -0400
Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #306


Apology to MW #306 (For June 5, 1999)

Everything is UFOs from caps on down to shoes. It's written
into histories we didn't hide or lose. It's tied to an
environment that evolves beyond the few to a brand new kind of
living that is right for me, if not for you. It's wrapped up in
psychology -- philosophy, etiology. It redefines these
liberally, makes them strange and other worldly. It turns your
world inside out, and makes new rules that you can't flout.
Floating in your airy castle, crashing down is such a hassle,
but you _built_ up in the air advised by demons selling there.

You must give _up_ your pride, I've found, that you should wear
creation's crown. You are _not_ the dead lock nut. You'll stake
no claim beyond the rut of that which you will not admit --
denial, and you're filled with it. Around you monstrous rocks
profound are coasting in a dance, they've found, that threaten
us right here on Earth with mayhem like a god's foul curse.
Threatened like some brainless chickens, we cluck and scratch
and fake admissions that we have lit the torch of *light*, and
strive for *God*, and *truth*, and *right*. Nothing's further
from the truth, we stand unmasked, too proud -- aloof. Too proud
by far -- our small advancement loses it's attached enhancement
as we find we're mewling infants wallowing in our filth's
contentment.

Edit all your moldy tomes for evidence you keep alone. Write
your works of snide derision; accuse the rest of imprecision.
Pepper speech with fallacies that prove your thoughts have
callused knees. Dredge up *facts* all out of context; cite them
like you have no pretext; hide behind a noxious nym like "Love
lies Squealing, or "anonym." Spew the proof you have no stones;
that you�re a pest and not alone. A cyber bug that sucks the
blood of spirit you have lost now -- bud. Write your message,
spread the lie that we see nothing in our sky. Laugh at a
conspiracy; pretend that _you're_ not on your knees; deny the
scales affixed to eyes to push away some fear you hide.

Fix your eyes on starry skies, and watch the blackness
uncontrived. Time is what you witness there -- time _enough_ and
more to spare. Moons and planets, gassy clouds, cosmic dust --
there is no doubt. Beings from space look back towards you, and
wonder that you're there -- it's true. Energy exists in time,
the frequency we see -- sublime. Power's found at zero points?
We light our farts! We're out of joint! Busy with our ethnic
cleansing we strut and preen in strife unending, holding out for
just a few what blessings grace elitist's views.

In our histories it's been written, we turn our eyes away --
we're smitten. Too much truth there slaps our faces filling
holes and gaps or spaces. What we cannot cop to yet, and where
our bloated hubris rests, are questions on our lofty status,
what we now accept free gratis. Banking on old Aristotle
(forgetting as a footnote, Plato) we're buried in our crystal
spheres containing what we choose to fear. Wrapped in
*blessings* of a church that hates the world as devil cursed, we
pillage, rape and pour abuse on that which _nurtures_! It's _so_
abstruse!

UFOs are everything! From ancient times they wail and sing.
Through the years they've shown themselves, we've pictures, film
we stack on shelves. Anecdotes abound in waves, from Presidents
without disgrace, to airline captains coming clean -- these
_craft_ are NOT a stupid dream. I, myself, have had some
sightings. They're not balloons, and gas or lightning -- UFO's
are everywhere, they wash your clothes, they set your hair!
They've watched us through such trying times, they've likely got
our history, Clyde. And there's the rub -- explains all
reticence. This is why we hide the evidence. We're afraid we�d
be found out -- that _all_ would _know_ what we're about!

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

Everybody has questions to answer. The more you manipulate and
control the more questions you should have to answer. The more
you hold yourself up as an example to the world of compassion,
intelligence and decency the more examination you should you
should be able to sustain. Our culture abuses its societal
privileges. In the interests of a "National Security" or a
"return to traditional values" there hides an impetus so rich
with arbitrariness, unfairness, and unethical practice that it
can scarcely be believed. The drive is to maintain a status quo
so ridiculously canted that it is beyond the limits of rational
sensibility. We're so dirty now that the mere admission of these
dereliction's and travesties explode the status quo like a penny
balloon. Folks from space, watching and perhaps recording our
ancient four million year old advance from the African Savanna
would have quite a tale to tell -- told as it was from an
unjaundiced  "Alien View." I'd sure like to hear that story,
wouldn't you? Heh! All the news that fits.

All the news.

Restore John Ford!


--
Ponder the Wit & Wisdom of Ching Chow!
View "Unstill Life" -- Animation . . . and more.
Consider Matter, Mind & Movement.
See the current HTML "Apology to MW" with illustration.
Take a ride in the Teleporter.

Explore "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/
<Updated 27 May>

John Ford Restoration Fund -- Send your checks and
money orders to _me_, Alfred Lehmberg
(cut out the lawyers, they got their's) at:
304 Melbourne Drive, Enterprise AL, 36330. Strict records kept.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from
afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, burned at the





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 5

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 99 11:49:54 PDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:51:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:50:47 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 99 08:26:28 PDT

Hi, Dennis and listfolk:

>Arnold may well have been aware of the writings of the people
>you mention. But judging from his own writings, he based his
>belief that UFOs were some type of living organism on his own
>experiences. See the following, for example:

>"This is the same sort of impression [of a living thing] I got
>after seeing these same things again in 1952. Two of them flew
>under me at Mount Lassen. I got a movie of these, and one was
>just as solid as a Chevrolet car. But you could see the pine
>trees right through the other one that was following it. I too
>got the feeling that here was something that was alive, rather
>than that they were machines."

From time to time (though fairly rarely), UFO witnesses have
reported the sensation that what they were observing was a
living object. On June 1, 1933, a mountain climber on Everest
told of seeing winged objects which "seemed to pulsate in and
out as though they were breathing." There is the famous
Crawfordsville, Indiana, monster story from September 1891, not
to mention the tradition of pwdre ser ("rot from the stars," aka
"star jelly"). Plus the remarkable case from Biskopsberga,
Sweden, in May 1808, a full account of which was published in a
contemporary issue of Transactions of the Swedish Academy of
Sciences.  Again, I refer interested listfolk to my coverage of
these and related matters in The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp.
872-77. If any of you know of other cases, I encourage you to
post them here.

Jerry Clark





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 6

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 19:31:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 10:07:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 99 11:49:54 PDT

<snip>

>>From time to time (though fairly rarely), UFO witnesses have
>reported the sensation that what they were observing was a
>living object. On June 1, 1933, a mountain climber on Everest
>told of seeing winged objects which "seemed to pulsate in and
>out as though they were breathing." There is the famous
>Crawfordsville, Indiana, monster story from September 1891, not
>to mention the tradition of pwdre ser ("rot from the stars," aka
>"star jelly"). Plus the remarkable case from Biskopsberga,
>Sweden, in May 1808, a full account of which was published in a
>contemporary issue of Transactions of the Swedish Academy of
>Sciences.  Again, I refer interested listfolk to my coverage of
>these and related matters in The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp.
>872-77. If any of you know of other cases, I encourage you to
>post them here.

>Jerry Clark

Jerry,

Actually you can find another case in the Arnold article already
cited, pp. 27-8, of the Proceedings of the First International
UFO Congress. It precedes Arnold's own remarks quoted here
earlier, but snipped this time.

I find it highly unlikely that Boeing would fly one of its test
planes over Mexico, but that's what Arnold relates. I also find
it highly unlikely that Boeing had a test (or any other) plane
capable of 1500 mph and 67,000 feet altitude, but, again, that's
the way Arnold has it. The last time I looked, Boeing was in the
business of building big, slow passenger planes.

Does anyone know if they ever did any high-speed design test
planes for the military? I know they did the B-47 and the B-52,
but after that they went commercial.

Arnold doesn't give a date for the episode.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                               Re: Resignation

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:42:59 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 10:28:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Resignation

>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 13:05:55 EDT
>Subject: Resignation
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>Effective June 4, 1999, I have resigned from the Intruders
>Foundation Action Committee as a result of personal
>considerations.  This is my decision and has little to do with
>the actions taken by other members except the coincidence of
>timing.

Hi All,

Just in case the timing of this second 'resignation' from IF
has caused anyone to wonder what's going on over there,
I'd just like to say that it is purely coincidental and that
one has _nothing_ to do with the other. Jim left for his
reasons and I left because I have some real financial
issues and considerations.

IF is one of the _few_ safe and sane places that anyone
who suspects that are having UFO/abduction related
experiences can contact for information or help. I just
didn't want anyone to think that because two people have
left within days of each other that there was anything
wrong with IF.

I put the very best of me into IF for more than five years.
It is a source of pride for me to know that I was instrumental
in helping to make its services and Budds' research work
more accessable than it was before I came along. I was
concerned that these resignations might reflect negatively
on IF (or Budd) so I rush to defend its reputation. I have
the right. I have a lot of my life and my soul invested in it.

Peace,

John Velez
________________________________________________
                                 jvif@spacelab.net
                    ABDUCTION INFORMATION CENTER
                            http://www.if-aic.com/
 "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
________________________________________________





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 6

             Re: 'Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO Experiencers'

From: Julie Bedford <jewels@iinet.net.au>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 11:04:48 +0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 10:23:54 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO Experiencers'

>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: 'Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO Experiencers'
>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:19:15 -0500

>'ello all,

>After my recent request for info regarding
>electrophysiology/neurophysiology of experiencers, I
>'coincidentally' recieved the Rhine Institute's latest issue of
>The Journal of Parapsychology, which lists in its yearly
>bibliography an article titled "Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO
>Experiencers."

>Authors are listed as Don and Moura (1997). Published in Journal
>of Scientific Exploration, 11, pg 435-454. Although

>I am now a member of the SSE, I don't have this issue onhand,
>and wondered if anyone on this list might who would be willing
>to send me a copy to aid in the literature review that I am
>engaged in while I consider exploring this area further in an
>experimental manner. If so, please contact me directly.



To the List


I can probably get a photocopy of this article for you as a
friend of mine has located this issue.

You can email me direct

Jules






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                     Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99

From: Dan Geib <geibdan@qtm.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 08:56:24 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 10:39:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99

>From: Rense E-News <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
>To: Rense E-News  <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:40:01 -0600
>Subject: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99

<snip>

>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
>----------------------------------------------------------------

>The Week Ahead
>  6-6-99 thru 6-12-99

> Guests, Announcements, Week's Top Stories
>   From sightings.com

>Jeff Rense E-News is distributed exclusively by Free Subscription.

>  * From Jeff's Desk *

>There are hundreds of short, sometimes intriguing but thoroughly
>unverifiable stories circulating on the net purporting to reveal
>the truth of human ET visitation and contact. Wading through
>these sometimes sensational items is not always easy.  Most are
>rather obvious hoaxes, some are very well written and show
>considerable creativity, while others often contain a mixture of
>truth and fiction that is not easily dismissed.  Most all of them,
>however, have one thing in common:  anonymous or unknown sources.
>Here is an example of one of the many 'ET revelations' that show
>up in our mailbox several times a month...

>>From Robert Collins, 6-4-99, <LesMiserable@sprintmail.com>:

>The following is an account of the meeting I (the source) was
>involved in with EBE-2.

<snip>

Dear Jeff,

It is funny that you post one of ol' Uncle Bob's 'stories' . In
my opinion he is the King of unverifiable UFO stories. They are
always great in content, fun to read, but  as you state, most
all of them, however, have one thing in common:  anonymous or
unknown sources. This does seem to be one field of research
where people are considered 'knowlegable' bases on these
mysterious 'unknow sources'. What ever happened to fact based
reasearch?  These 'stories' make good folklore, but not much
else

UFO Folklore !
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/framemst.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                            What's New at Magonia

From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 13:39:58 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 10:45:38 -0400
Subject: What's New at Magonia


http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/newmag.htm

What's new at Magonia


06/06/99

Visions of Bowmen and Angels
The strange case of Arthur Machen and the Angels of Mons.
By Kevin McClure

Magonia Monthly Supplement #15
ETH - questions that need answering; Satanic update; Allagash
under fire Mark Pilkington

"A heathen perhaps, but not, I hope, an unenlightened one."
Lord Summerisle
------------------------------------------------
Magonia Online



http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 09:46:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 10:53:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:18:23 PDT

>I will be making a final report on Gulf Breeze in which I will
>show you and any objective person that all the pictures that
>were taken by Mr. Ed Walters could have -and were- taken by him
>in a hoaxed manner.

Your report should include photos that were created that match
all of the Gulf Breeze photos. Saying something can be hoaxed
and actually re-creating the hoax are two different things. Let's
see you re-create the photos that you say are so easy to
re-create.

>Mr. Art Hufford, one of the MUFON investigators on the Gulf
>Breeze case, saw an object during the daylight for twenty
>seconds. He drew that object and went around on national TV [I
>heard him at least twice] and said to Ed Walters: �I saw
>something exactly like what you saw.� But if you look at Art
>Hufford�s drawings, there are no portholes or windows in Mr.
>Hufford�s UFO. Does it have a similar shape? Somewhat, but there
>are no windows or portholes. So obviously, contrary to what Art
>Hufford told the national media, he did not see the same object
>that Ed Walter�s allegedly photographed [which shows portholes
>and windows]. Since he was caught and this was brought to his
>attention by myself and other investigators, he later stated
>that �there may have been windows, but I didn�t see any.� So
>contrary to popular belief, Art Hufford did not EVER see the
>same object that Ed Walters photographed.

No, this is not correct. Art Hufford might have seen the same
object and he might not have seen the same object. There's no
way to tell for sure since his sighting wasn't detailed enough.
You criticize the others for jumping to conclusions on what they
saw when you do the same thing. You are biased, in my opinion,
to there being nothing to the entire Guf Breeze case. You have
no idea what Art Hufford saw and either do I. Might have been
the same, might not have been the same. No way to tell with the
data provided. That's an unbiased opinion.

And where do you get off saying that Hufford was "caught". Do
you have proof that he was purposely trying to deceive the media
and others?

I have lots of questions about Gulf Breeze and Whitley Strieber
but I am able to remain unbiased with my conclusions until
conclusions are reached either way. This is something you do not
seem to be able to do.

Joe Murgia
Tampa, Florida



:
:
:
:







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 6

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 08:53:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 10:56:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 99 11:49:54 PDT

>>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:50:47 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 99 08:26:28 PDT

>>Arnold may well have been aware of the writings of the people
>>you mention. But judging from his own writings, he based his
>>belief that UFOs were some type of living organism on his own
>>experiences. See the following, for example:

>>"This is the same sort of impression [of a living thing] I got
>>after seeing these same things again in 1952. Two of them flew
>>under me at Mount Lassen. I got a movie of these, and one was
>>just as solid as a Chevrolet car. But you could see the pine
>>trees right through the other one that was following it. I too
>>got the feeling that here was something that was alive, rather
>>than that they were machines."

>>From time to time (though fairly rarely), UFO witnesses have
>reported the sensation that what they were observing was a
>living object. On June 1, 1933, a mountain climber on Everest
>told of seeing winged objects which "seemed to pulsate in and
>out as though they were breathing." There is the famous
>Crawfordsville, Indiana, monster story from September 1891, not
>to mention the tradition of pwdre ser ("rot from the stars," aka
>"star jelly"). Plus the remarkable case from Biskopsberga,
>Sweden, in May 1808, a full account of which was published in a
>contemporary issue of Transactions of the Swedish Academy of
>Sciences.  Again, I refer interested listfolk to my coverage of
>these and related matters in The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp.
>872-77. If any of you know of other cases, I encourage you to
>post them here.

Mr. Clark,

If memory serves, I recall reading years ago an account of
seemingly living UFOs in Brad Steiger's book, "The Gods of
Aquarius" (I'm working from memory here so don't hold my feet
to the fire on the author and title).

The UFO encounter went something like this: some pilots in a
western state went flying one day and landed their airplanes
atop a mesa for a rest and look-see.  To their surprise a small
UFO landed near them.  It appeared to be in distress due to
something having taken a bite out of its rim. The bite looked
like one one might take from a sandwich. The group saw metal
strips hanging from the 'wound.'

To their greater surprise several larger UFOs soon descended to
the mesa top, appeared to attend the 'wounded,' smaller UFO and
escorted it away.

The impression of the witnesses was that the actions of the
small UFO and its larger counterparts were identical to that of
a young animal that had been attacked by a predator, escaped and
ministered to by its pack.

I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing you requested list
members post but here it is. This was the first time I'd read
any report that even hinted at the possibility of UFOs being
anything other than piloted machines. At the time the oddity
of the concept made quite an impression on me.

Best regards,
Ron Decker





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                           UpDates Server Problem

From: Moderator UFO UpDates - Toronto
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 12:43:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 12:43:18 -0400
Subject: UpDates Server Problem



There appears to be a problem sending mail to List subscribers.

As of Sunday afternoon [June 6] the GlobalServe outgoing e-mail
server and Eudora 4.1 stopped talking to one another for the
second time.

I am still able to send mail to single addresses - hence this
message to the Archive at ufomind.com

The Admin people at the ISP have been notified and are working
the problem.

Unfortunately, I was unable to post notice to the List of Larry
Fenwick's guesting on our program 'Strange Days... Indeed' on
CFRB 1010 and the Web last night.

With some sleuthing the List should be functioning shortly.


Errol Bruce-Knapp






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                           Re: The Enigma Channel

From: John Hayes <jhayes@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 11:47:41 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:22:47 -0400
Subject: Re: The Enigma Channel


Another message from the Enigma Channel:


Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 08:47:34 +0100 (BST)
To: John Hayes <jhayes@cableinet.co.uk>
From: chris-e@dircon.co.uk (Victor)
Subject: Re: THE ENIGMA CHANNEL


Subject: Hello From the ENIGMA CHANNEL - SEASON ONE documentary
deadline!

FROM: Christopher Everard, The Enigma Channel, London

Hello to all our Production Partners!

Our growing family of documentary film-makers now spans the
entire planet - we are very pleased to have all of you on-board
- thankyou all for responding so swiftly and joining our
Production Partnership Programme (PPP) - nearly everyday we're
receiving submission VHS cassettes.

You still have time to submit documentaries for the first season
of programmes on The Enigma Channel - a FINAL CALL will be
e-mailed in about one month's time - which isn't very far away,
so if you definitely want to join the Programme then get your
submission cassettes to me as soon as possible to the address
below. If you want us to re-email the Independent Production
Agreement (IPA) then let us know.

We have started to assemble a list of FAQs (Frequently Asked
Questions) from all the corresspondence we have been getting
from our Production Partners - these may help some of you decide
if you wish to join after having read them:

THE ENIGMA CHANNEL: FAQs:

1. Does joining the PPP affect any of the existing distribution
arrangements I have made with other companies?

NO - Not as far as the Enigma Channel is concerned anyway -
allowing us to centrally distribute and sell your VHS cassettes
is not an EXCLUSIVE arrangement - you can still sell them
direct, or through your distributor.

2. Does it matter if the picture and audio quality is not very
good on my master tape?

We can often improve the look and sound of all tapes you send to
us.  Try and make a GOOD COPY (don't send master tapes) - we'll
let you know if we think it's broadcastable.

3. How will I know how many cassettes you have sold on my behalf
if I take Option 3 on the PPP agreement?

You'll be able to monitor via e-mail all the orders coming
through the Enigma video-store and book-store.

4. If I agree to join your PPP and have my documentary shown on
the Enigma Channel, does this mean I cannot show the documentary
anywhere else?

Having your documentaries shown on the Enigma Channel is not an
Exclusive Arrangement - you're still the copyright owner, the
material is still your property and you can show it anywhere you
wish - obviously, if there should be another internet tv station
wishing to show the same documentary, then we'll probably put
your show 'on rotation' - it's unwise to clog the web up with
multiple downloadable copies of the same documentary.

5.  Can we visit you in London?

Yes, anytime - we'll help make arrangements for your stay and
you're
welcome to use our video editing studio.

OK - that's it - if you want to submit a documentary for
broadcast then do it THIS WEEK - print out your IPA form, sign
it and send the tapes to us as soon as possible...


THE ENIGMA CHANNEL
163 Churchbury Road
London SE9 5JB
ENGLAND

toodlepip...

Christopher Everard
Chairman/CEO: The Enigma Channel
direct line - 0181 850 2109
[END]

Regards,


John Hayes

jhayes@cableinet.co.uk
webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com
UFO Roundup:- http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/
Filer's Files:- http://ufoinfo.com/filer/
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences:-
        http://ufoinfo.com/ufoicq/






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                          BWW Media Alert 19990606

From: BufoCalvin@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 09:53:40 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:23:58 -0400
Subject: BWW Media Alert 19990606



Bufo Calvin
P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Internet: BufoCalvin@aol.com
Website: <A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin">http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin
</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/bufosweirdworld">Link
to Amazon.com
</A>
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this
edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD provided that attribution is made to
http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin. It is good etiquette to check with
strangers before you e-mail them something. If you forward this, please make
sure it is clear that you are forwarding it).

June 6, 1999

This one may be a bit lighter than usual: busy week.

As usual, let me know what you think at <A HREF="mailto:
bufocalvin@aol.com">BufoCalvin@aol.com
</A>.

On to the listings: Times are generally Pacific.

RADIO

Eddie Middleton's very popular show in the South, Nightsearch, has a website
at
<A HREF="http://listen.to/nightsearch">http://listen.to/nightsearch<;/A>.
Starting soon, the new website at
<A HREF="http://www.nightsearch.net/">http://www.nightsearch.net/<;/A>.
Unfortunately, no streaming audio. Sundays from 2:00 to 4:00 PM (Pacific).
The call-in line is 901-365-1430.

Sunday, June 6, 2:00 PM (Pacific), Llew Wykel (Stonehenge, aliens, etc.)

Don Ecker, of UFO MAGAZINE, hosts STRANGE DAZE on the Liberty Works. It can
be heard on streaming Real Audio at
<A
HREF="http://www.broadcast.com/radio/talk/lwrn">http://www.broadcast.com/radio
/talk/lwrn
</A>.

Mike Jarmus, REALITY AND BEYOND, 7:00 PM Sundays,
<A HREF="http://spectrum.orn.com/omega.ram">http://spectrum.orn.com/omega.ram
</A>. Streaming audio available

ART BELL - DREAMLAND
Currently, the most popular talk show on this area.
<A HREF="http://www.artbell.com/">http://www.artbell.com/<;/A>. Live streaming
audio (and video) available.

JEFF RENSE - SIGHTINGS
Jeff is well-versed on the topics, but likes to let the guests speak,
resulting in one of the best radio shows on these topics. You can hear Real
Audio of the show, and there are archives as well. Go to
<A HREF="http://www.sightings.com/">http://www.sightings.com/<;/A> for more
information. The show is on at 7:00 PM Pacific Monday through Friday, and
8:00 PM Pacific on Sunday. You can hear it anywhere through your computer.
Please note that Jeff also often covers topics which I do not consider
relevant to this list. To subscribe to the Jeff Rense Weekly E-news (which
includes articles and a complete guest listing), e-mail (subject: Subscribe)
<A HREF="mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net">mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net</A>.

Sunday, June 6, 8:00 PM, Alan Vaughn (psychic predictions for the millenium);
Tim Matthews on human-engineered UFOs (live from England)
Wednesday, June 9, 7:00 PM, Michael Lindemann, Weekly UFO/World report;
Doreen Virtue on talking to aliens
Friday, June 11, 7:00 PM, Brad Steiger on ghost recordings

PAUL WILLIAMS & SCOTT CARR: UFO DESK
This New York show has been around for years, but is now available on
streaming audio. The website is
<A
HREF="http://www.escape.com/~paulw/ufodesk.html">http://www.escape.com/~paulw/
ufodesk.html
</A>. It runs at 8:00 PM (Pacific) on Sundays.

JEFF MISHLOVE AND THE VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY
Webcast every weekday at 8:00 PM for two hours, with a repeat at 10:00 PM.
Webcast at
<A HREF="http://www.wisdomradio.com/">http://www.wisdomradio.com/<;/A>.

TELEVISION

A&E (USA)

Sunday, June 6, 11:00 AM, THE UNEXPLAINED: THE TWIN CONNECTION
Next Wednesday, June 16, 4:00 AM, EXTRATERRESTRIALS (UFOs)
Next Friday, June 18, 4:00 AM, ALIEN ABDUCTIONS

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL (Europe)

Tuesday, June 8, 1:35 PM (GMT+1), ANIMAL X (sea monsters; animals predicting
earthquakes; mystery UK carnivores)

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL (USA)

Friday, June 11, 8:00 PM, UFOS IN AUSTRALIA
Friday, June 11, 11:00 PM, UFOS IN AUSTRALIA
Next Monday, June 14, 9:00 PM, ROSWELL
Next Friday, June 15, 12:00 AM, ROSWELL

THE HISTORY CHANNEL (USA)

Monday, June 7, 6:00 PM, HAUNTED HISTORY: NEW ORLEANS
Monday, June 7, 10:00 PM, HAUNTED HISTORY: NEW ORLEANS
Tuesday, June 8, 11:00 AM, 20TH CENTURY WITH MIKE WALLACE: ARE WE ALONE?
(UFOs)
Tuesday, June 8, 4:00 PM, 20TH CENTURY WITH MIKE WALLACE: ARE WE ALONE? (UFOs)
Tuesday, June 8, 6:00 PM, HAUNTED HISTORY: NEW ENGLAND
Tuesday, June 8, 10:00 PM, HAUNTED HISTORY: NEW ENGLAND
Next Sunday, June 13, 10:00 AM, HAUNTED HISTORY: NEW ORLEANS
Next Sunday, June 13, 11:00 AM, HAUNTED HISTORY: NEW ENGLAND

LOCAL CABLE (USA)
BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED (I'm short on time this week, so I'm going to list it
the way it was sent to me...trimmed down for dates only):
SUNDAY CH 56 1:30 AM MANHATTAN NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORK NY
JUNE 6.1999 LOUIS Handwriting and Tea Leaf Analysis
JUNE13,1999 JENNY SMEDLEY AUTHOR #1 BESTSELLER IN THE UK "RIPPLES
Jenny speaks about her past life with Garth Brooks then known as Ryan
Fitzgerald
JUNE20,1999 BETTY,BOB,BECKY ANDREASSON LUCA A four part series on how there
family survived multiple abduction experiences. They are the family that many
books have been written on there experience such as The Andreasson Legacy,
also The Andreasson Affair. 'AWESOME SHOWS' DON'T MISS"
JUNE 27.1999 *PART 2 OF THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY

SUNDAY CH35/80/96 930PM CABLEVISION OF WOODBURY NY
JUNE 6.1999 JENNY SMEDLEY AUTHOR REINCARNATION
JUNE13,1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PART 1 ABDUCTIONS

MONDAY CH27 10AM CABLEVISION OF RIVERHEAD NY
JUNE 7.1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PART 1 ABDUCTIONS
JUNE 14.1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PART 2 ABDUCTIONS

MONDAY CH 59/37 11PM CABLEVISION OF YONKERS NY
JUNE 7.1999 ABDUCTIONS PART 1
JUNE 14.1999 ABDUCTIONS PART 2

TUESDAY CH 34 830PM CABLEVISION OF YORKTOWN HEIGHTS NY
JUNE 8, 1999 ABDUCTIONS PART 1
JUNE 15, 1999 ABDUCTIONS PART 2

TUESDAY CH 6 830 PM COMMUNITY TV OF SANTE FE, NEW MEXICO
JUNE 8, 1999 MARIA FIX HEALING
JUNE 15, 1999 MARIA FIX SPIRIT COMMUNICATION

TUESDAY,
JUNE QUEENS QPTV CH 56 10PM JENNY SMEDLEY AUTHOR "RIPPLES"
JUNE 8 CH56 9 PM ABDUCTIONS PART 1

WEDNESDAY CH 12 830PM
GATEWAY ACCESS 12 SPRING CREEK NY
JUNE 9, 1999 LOUIS HANDWRITING ANALYSIS
JUNE 16, 1999 LOUIS TEA LEAF READER

WEDNESDAY PAC 8 OF LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO CH 8 4PM
JUNE 2, 1999 VARIOUS PARANORMAL/METAPHYSICAL SUBJECTS
JUNE 1999 " " " " " " " " "
JUNE 16, 1999 SAME AS ABOVE DATES

WEDNESDAY CH12 MINNESOTA CABLE ACCESS TRAC 12 4PM& 1130PM
JUNE 9, 1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PART 2 ABDUCTIONS
JUNE 16.1999 ABDUCTIONS PART 3

THURSDAY CH 25 5PM CABLEVISION OF HAUPPAGUE NY
JUNE 17, 1999 LOUIS HANDWRITING ANALYSIS

THURSDAY CH 27 10 AM LTV OF EASTHAMPTON NY
JUNE 10, 1999 ABDUCTIONS PT 2
JUNE 17, 1999 ABDUCTIONS PT 3

FRIDAYS CH 8 9PM PAC 8 TV OF LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO
JUNE 4, 1999 JENNY SMEDLEY AUTHOR "RIPPLES"
JUNE 11, 1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PT 1 ABDUCTIONS

FRIDAYS CH 99 930PM CABLEVISION OF BROOKHAVEN NY
JUNE 11, 1999 BILL MARSHALL "COSMO/ASTROLOGIST" PART 1
JUNE 18, 1999 BILL MARSHALL "ASTROLOGER " PART 2

TO CONTACT JANET OR TO BE A GUEST ON HER TV SHOW
WRITE TO: BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED
JANET RUSSELL
POB 311
MEDFORD NY 11763
EMAIL: Rosebuds6@aol.com
Website: http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html
Beyond The Unexplained with Janet Russell

MTV (USA)

Wednesday, June 9, 1:30 PM, ROAD RULES: AUSTRALIA (includes UFOs)
Next Monday, June 14, 1:30 PM, ROAD RULES: AUSTRALIA (includes "haunted
hotel")

THE SCIENCE CHANNEL

New schedule again, since March 29.
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 9:00 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE (don't know
which one)
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 9:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Weekdays, 10:00 AM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 5:00 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 5:30 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Weekdays,6:00 PM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Every day but Monday and Sunday, 1:00 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Every day but Monday and Sunday, 1:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Tuesdays through Saturdays, 2:00 AM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 9:00 AM and 9:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S
MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 5:00 PM and 5:30 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S
MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
Saturdays, OUT OF THIS WORLD all day long

THE SCI-FI CHANNEL (US Feed)

Tuesday, June 8, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #3024 (Israeli UFOs; near-death
experiences; Bigfoot; "UFO defense manual")
Wednesday, June 9, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #3025 (Hangar 18, UFOs and
the Air Force; psychic detective; reincarnation; alien abductions; life on
Mars)
Thursday, June 10, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #3026 (UFO technology;
trauma-induced ESP; Bahamian Obeah rituals; Mexican UFOs; intuitive healing)
Friday, June 11, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4027 (UFO tape; psychic
detective; alien autopsy: Bigfoot)

SPACE (Canada)

Monday, June 7, 5:00 AM (time zone unknown), MYSTERIES, MAGIC & MIRACLES
(Roswell)
Next from Sunday, June 13, 7:30 AM, MYSTERIOUS FORCES BEYOND (psychic healing)
Next from Sunday, June 13, 12:30 PM (time zone unknown), ANIMAL X-FILES
(Jersey Devil; Howick Falls monster in South Africa)
Next Sunday, June 13, 5:30 PM, IN ADVANCE OF THE LANDING (a well-respected
examination of UFO beliefs ((pre Heaven's Gate...from 1991)

SYNDICATED (USA)

Tuesday, June 8, MAURY (psychic and author James Van Praagh)
Tuesday, June 8, MONTEL WILLIAMS (psychic and author Sylvia Browne)

SYNDICATED (USA)
___________________________

This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!"
____________________________

You can stop receiving this from me just by asking (note: it is commonly
redistributed, and I can't control you getting it from those sources) by
e-mail at BufoCalvin@aol.com. You can also subscribe or unsubscribe to Bufo's
WEIRD WORLD Media Alert the same way. Also, please let me know if there is
something in the media you think I should cover. Deadline is Tuesday, the
week before.
_____________________________

Back to <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/BufoCalvin/index.html">BufoCalvin's
Home Page
</A>
Back to <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin/ma.html">Bufo's WEIRD
WORLD Media Alert
</A>
Back to <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.html">Bufo's WEIRD
WORLD Books
</A>

E-mail to <A HREF="mailto:bufocalvin@aol.com">BufoCalvin@aol.com</A>







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                              List Subscribers

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:09:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:09:44 -0400
Subject: List Subscribers




The problem with getting mail out to the List has not yet been
resolved.

To those of you have found your way to the archive, I apologise.
The UpDates ISP people are working on the problem.

Rather than not distribute messages, I'm going to send them
here, to the archive, until such time as GlobalServe resolves
the problem. Once that happens I'll send the back-logged traffic
to the subscriber list.

ebk






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                     Re: Protocol Bookburning Conspiracy

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 17:23:44 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:16:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Protocol Bookburning Conspiracy


>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Protocol Bookburning Conspiracy
>Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 20:08:29 -0500


>Stanton,

>If I'm blowing in the wind, so are you. Note that my original
>post referred to a _worldwide_ cover up. Orchestrated by who and
>how? You haven't got a clue because there ain't no such animal,
>no matter how the US classifies or comparmentalizes its own
>information. You missed the point completely, which doesn't
>wholly surprise me.

>>It is interesting that there was nothing published about the
>>enigma code-breaking work so vital to winning WW 2 for 30 years,
>>though 12,000 people were involved!. There was nothing published
>>about the Corona reconaissance satellites launched from 1960 on,
>>until more than 30 years later even though there were almost a
>>dozen failures to begin with and even though thousands of people
>>were involved. The NRO was established by a TOP SECRET Executive
>>Order in 1962. There was nothing in public for well over a
>>decade..Annual Budget estimated at $8Billion. The DCI admitted
>>to a black budget of 26.6 Billon dollars a couple of years back.
>>Do you really think nothing can be kept secret?.

>You just mentioned several highly classified things that
>_weren't_ keep secret (or were subsequently revealed in an
>unambiguous fashion) and then asked me if anything could be kept
>secret. There's your answer right there. In effect, no. Kept
>secret for awhile, yes, no one disputes that; kept secret
>forever, no way.

>You forget that the Manhattan Project was infiltrated early on.
>You forget that the Chinese just walked away with virtually
>every nuclear secret in our arsenal. You forget that there were
>only 15 copies of the Pentagon Papers -- and one of them wound
>up being published in the NY Times. You forget that Corona,
>MK-ULTRA, and the NRO have now all been made public.

>So what secret(s) _is_ being kept to this very day? UFOs, of
>course, because that conveniently suits your career on the
>lecture circuit. And what has been leaked? There is not one
>convincing, unambiguous document that would lead anyone to
>believe that anything remotely resembling MJ-12 exists in any
>form or fashion _in this day and age_.

>>Common sense tells us that based on the history of successful
>>secrecy over the past 60 years, and the arrogance of press
>>people who think that if something were happening, they would
>>know about it, that of course secrets can be kept.. Where have
>>you been? How much time did you spend working on highly
>>classified programs.? I hate to use  the old refrain, but
>>absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence for absence.

>>Stan Friedman (Gone until June 2)

>What "successful secrecy"?  I hate to use an equally old
>refrain, but all of the previous highly classified, supersecret
>programs you mentioned are now widely known, if only in
>generalities as opposed to specifics. Where's our UFO
>whistleblower? Tim Cooper? To laugh. Richard Doty? To laugh.

>As for "absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence for absence,"
>you've dined out on that canard long enough, up to and including
>the free spaghetti you're eating in San Marino, Italy, this
>week. (Hope you showed them those tired NSA slides of yours.)

>It's your theme song, something you sing everytime someone asks
>you where your evidence is. When cornered with bad, dubious or
>duplicitous evidence you trot it out like a mantra, like a pit
>bull promoting Taco Bell.

>Where was Kent Lorenzo's negative Roswell testimony in any of
>your books or writings? Yet you apparently talked to him as
>early as 1992, but didn't like what he had to say (NOT!) about
>alien bodies at Roswell, did you? Where's any mention in your
>books and writings about the negative findings Tom Deuley and I
>turned up about the alleged El Indio-Guerrero crash mentioned in
>the patently spurious MJ-12 briefing? Missing in action, aren't
>they, although I'm sure Deuley's kept you well informed about
>our three visits to
>the area?

>So who's keeping secrets here? Seems you're keeping some of
>your own, Stan, especially those that go against your argument.

>Dennis


Been gone indeed to San Marino, but did not show blacked out
documents. My talk was about interstellar travel, I did show
real nuclear propulsions systems that most people have never
seen.

I have to laugh at the notion that, because a number of secrets
kept for a very long time have finally been released, means that
there are none being withheld. Wishful thinking indeed. I
certainly wasn't implying that no spies have been successful .
Of course they have. It is rather interesting that there really
haven't been any later Daniel Ellsbergs... despite all the
people who have had clearances and all thebillions of pages..
You  and Tom Deuley can be happy in saying there was no crash
near the Texas- Mexico border. I find it interesting that in his
MUFON J article Tom makes no references to the many papers that
have been published by me nor to TOP SECRET/MAJIC nor to the the
FBI investigation of the EBD and their buying Colonel Weaver's
proclamation that the documents are BOGUS.. hand written at
that. Seems a shame that my FOIA request for all documents
leading to that conclusion received a "we have nothing in
response to your request". My appeal received the same
response.Nothing like research by proclamation. I guess you are
in good company Dennis

I also find it interesting that in visits to 18 Archives I have
yet to see any TS Code word documents. The Kennedy Library has
10 drawers full of such material  being reviewed by the CIA
because of Exec. Order 12958. Maybe that is why the fate of the
Kennedy casket has finally been revealed...real important for
national security!!

Many countries such as England do not even have an FOIA,but do
have Official Secrets Acts.

The reasoning seems to be that since clearly Mark McGuire did
not hit a home run more than 70% of the time, he never hit one.

Since some secrets have been released all have been       NOT

The pasta was excellent in San Marino..

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                Nasa Programming Computer To Seek Alien Life

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:03:57
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:23:17 -0400
Subject: Nasa Programming Computer To Seek Alien Life


Source: The Sunday Times.

Stig

***

Sunday June 6 1999

INNOVATION

Biology

Computer to seek alien life

**

SPACE scientists are programming a hugely powerful computer to
recognise signs of life on other planets, writes Sean Hargrave.

By the end of next year, Nasa specialists claim the computer
will be able to recognise every variant of microbial life on
Earth. This database could then be added to any of the 10
missions destined for Mars in the next decade.

If the plan got approval, it would require a rover vehicle to
split rocks. Microscopes would then scour the newly exposed
surface and stop if the computer revealed they had discovered an
object that resembled life.

David Noever, a research scientist working on the project as
Nasa's Marshall space centre in Alabama, claims the technology
will help to focus the search for life on other planets.

"It's a little like having a filter on your e-mail," he says.
"If you get it right, you can just get the couple of messages
you are interested in rather than dozen of junk-mail messages
offering get-rich schemes." Teaching a computer what it should
consider life is a time-consuming project. The team has been
working on the system for a year and now claims it is 90%
reliable at recognising thousands of types of terrestrial life.

Noever says: "We basically program in thousands of pictures of
what microbial life looks like and then randomly show the
computer images of what is not life, like a book or car. It can
then recognise the patterns and recognise whether an object is
organic or not."

The earliest the database could be flown on a mission is thought
to be 2005. By then the Nasa team will have programmed the
computer to be able to predict what life may have evolved into
on different planets.

"We are going to program in varying atmospheres and gravity
conditions and see what the computer predicts microbial life
could look like on other planets," says Noever.

"That way we'll have a better chance of not missing something
just because it wasn't like what we have on Earth."


Copyright 1998 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on
Times Newspapers' standard terms and conditions. To inquire
about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the
Syndication website.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                    He's Keeping Eye On Close Encounters

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:22:51
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:24:55 -0400
Subject: He's Keeping Eye On Close Encounters


Source: Spokesman Review/Spokane.net June 6,

http://www.spokane.net:80/news-story-body.asp?Date=060699&ID=s589805&cat=

Stig

***

He's keeping eye on close encounters

Grayden Jones - The Spokesman-Review

**

He's seen the radiation burns and hair fall out. He's documented
the paralysis and fried corneas.

In more than 400 cases, John Schuessler has recorded evidence of
physical injury by people who claimed they have had close
encounters with unidentified flying objects.

"It can happen to anyone at any time," said Schuessler, deputy
director of the San Antonio, Texas-based Mutual UFO Network Inc.
(MUFON). "Most people are apathetic about UFOs, but when it
happens to them, it changes their life."

Schuessler, who lives in Littleton, Colo., is in Spokane this
weekend to hold private meetings with members of MUFON, an
organization that tracks and researches UFO incidents. The local
chapter has 18 members.

The retired Boeing engineer is considered the nation's expert in
the dramatic case of Betty Cash and Vickie and Colby Landrum,
two Texas women and a grandson who in 1980 claimed they were
nearly killed by radiation from an object that hovered over
their Oldsmobile Cutlass.

Schuessler rejects any suggestion that bug-eyed, bulb-headed
aliens are communing with humans. He's convinced that the long
list of physical injuries are proof that something other than
hallucinations are behind many UFO sightings reported each year.

Nine out of 10 UFO reports are bogus and can be explained by
science, Schuessler said.

Schuessler said he spent 16 years researching his book, "The
Cash-Landrum UFO Incident." He concluded that a diamond-shaped
object with power and mobility not known on Earth scorched the
Texas women. Federal officials have attempted to cover up the
incident, Schuessler said, denying any knowledge of military
helicopters that witnesses said were tracking the object.

Jerry Rolwes, director of MUFON in Spokane, said that since 1994
there have been 10 documented cases of UFOs across the Inland
Northwest. One of the most spectacular occurred in early 1996
when a Sagle, Idaho, woman, her teenage daughter and two
Sandpoint police officers witnessed an unexplained, bright
object over a lake.

"I've never witnessed a UFO," Schuessler said, "but it intrigues
the heck out of me."

*

What are your thoughts on "He's keeping eye on close
encounters"?

If you have a comment or reply to this story that you'd like to
share, fill in the form and click submit. Note: Replies are
limited to 250 words and must be signed with a valid email
address. No profanity or libelous statements will be printed.

(Go to the page for the form - Stig)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 7

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Joachim Koch <AchimKoch@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 18:22:22 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:35:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake
>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:28:46 +0100

>Hi,

>I have been following this debate with interest, as I trust has
>Paul Fuller. Paul and I have written three books on circles and
>been involved since before Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado even.


Hi Jenny, what a pleasure to have you here!

I followed this debate, too, and in another thread ("American
Billionaire...") I tried to explain that the the crop circle
phenomenon is not mainly a physical/scientific phenomenon
and still resists all tests with the available equipments
which were applied throughout all those years.

I would like to remind of all the teams who have been
investigating the crops on various occasions in the past.
No one produced evidence for a circle to be "genuine" though
there have been some.The crux is: we don't understand
the "technology" of the real circlemakers. Our apparatuses
are build to find what they are designed for - nothing else.

Here I would like to remind of the efforts of Dr. Meaden and
his (rich) Japanese colleagues, who have been very enthusiastic
about the "plasma vortex theory". Especially the Japanese tried
several times to take the Phenomenon by surprise with
heavy-weight equipments of hundreds of thousands Dollars
worth. They were sitting for weeks on top of the hills nearby
of Tim Carson's Farm - and had no results.

At the same time not far away two German students -
the Duerckheims - were blessed with the famous sighting of a
white light/body gliding through a field nearby where a formation
already existed. They took it with their video camera.

And that little example should make you all here in this
list very thoughtful, too: the Intelligence behind the
crop circle phenomenon is no mouse to be tested in our
laboratories! It has his/her/its own agenda and it does what
he/she/it/they want(s) to do - without any respect to our
understanding what is going on.

And I would like to remind of a nother team, who tried to
solve the problem once ans for all: the "ARGUS" team under
the leadership of Michael Choroust. This young scientist
came to Wiltshire with a team of sophisticated colleagues
and equipment. all funded with thousands of Dollars
"by a rich American individual".

We all know what happened to their research and results.
We all remember how enthusiastic we've been when first results
about "13 unusual radionuclids" were published and how
disappointed we were when we had to learn that it
was a "fata morgana".

And so on and so on.

Busty Tailor, form his rich archive of videos and slides,
showed Hans and me slides of stalks which were burnt
from the inside while looking quite normal from the outer
shells - typical sign of microwave-like activity. But this
evidence is something we do not find regularily in the fields.

And the oil-seed rape formations. Usually you cannot bend this
plant - except it is young. This is something the hoaxers know.
An exellent article had been published by Anthony Horn in the
CCCS's Journal "The Circular" (Vol. 5:1, Issue 17, Summer 1994).
Read page 20 f. and you'll understand. There is no magic
in formations in fields of young oil-seed rape. It's a trick.

And I also would like to remind you of the guide to hoax
crop circle formations issued by B.O.R.I. (Boring Old
Robert Irving). This man has fooled thousands of people
throughout the years with his sometimes exellent self-made
arrangements in the fields. This man has caused much damage
to the farmers, the plants and the reputation of the
phenomenon in general. And don't forget: he once was a buddy
of Mr. Jim Schnabel, a former (?) CIA-employe. These two
created many formations which up to today many croppies
woun't admit to be hoaxes. Many books are full of arial
shots of their "artworks".

Those here in this list who state that some features of
genuine circles cannot be reproduced by hoaxers haven't been
in England - or are simply naive - or don't want to accept
the truth.

After a preparation phase of two years, Hans-Juergen Kyborg
and I started our research on the spot in Wiltshire -
the only place where ever a genuine crop circle phenomenon
manifested - in 1991. We had found out that these signs
in the fields were "glyphs", a real script and we decoded the
characters with the help of a kind of "Rosetta-Formation" we
identified in 1990.

We started to communicate with the Intelligence behind the
whole Phenomenon on July 13, and received an answer on
July 17, 1991. At first glance, it seemed to be too easy
but exactly that's the way it was meant to be: easy, free,
availably for all, without any restriction of education
or origin.

For three years, we kept our experiences with us, then
we thought that the time had come to tell what happened.
We dared to write two articles to the honourable magazines
"The Cerealogist" and " The Circular" in Britain - and they
published it completely.

We recommend to read: "The Circular", Vol. 4:4, Issue 16,
March 1994, and: "The Cerealogist", No. 12, Summer 1994.

The crop circles up to 1992 are messages from the stars
and about the stars, to remind us who we are, where we are,
where we do come from and where we shall go.

Especially one region in the skies is pinpointed by
our "answer formation" of Preshute Downs and Barbury
Castle: It is the centre of the the Winter Hexagon (Winter
Circle), where a star is emphasized: HD 42807. It is a
sunlike star and its second planet may harbour life.

We also solved an enigma in the astronomical ceiling of
the tomb of Senenmut in Deir-al Bahari. It is the same star
that is pinpointed in this ceiling.

In the oldest known texts of the Egyptian culture, the
famous "Pyramid Texts", this star, which travels in space
where the centre of the Duat of the Egyptians is located,
is designed to be "the star where the Gods are born."

The Intelligence who manifested in England with the help
of the early crop circles, has challenged us to look, to
think, to count one ond one together, to find out who we
are, where we are, where we do come from and where we
shall go.

How tiny and ugly do these creatures look like who
have slanted eyes and do violate and mutilate people
against the positive power of these early agriglyphs
near old positive power points in Wiltshire, England.

If there is a hidden agenda, if there have been deals with
extraterrestrials and military-industrial complexes in
the U.S.A. and elsewhere, we have a chance to overcome this.
The early crop circles shall resist any explanation of their
mechanism of creation because that's not what was meant.
It was the meaning. The fact that something like that
materialized near ancient places was important, should
make us aware of these old stones, of their existence
and their function.

We have learned how to "use" the old places. This knowledge
is not new. It was abused by every power in the past because
they knew: once you have the place you have the land.

One recent example for this is the erection of an observatory
of the Vatican on top of an old American Native hill.

Those who see the circles within the fields and the fields
within the landscapes and the landscapes as a part of the
planet and the planet as one piece of a giant solar system
within the beautiful Milky Way and themselves as a part
of all this - those will come foreward.

This time - it is was necessary to know how those circles
were formed. It was necessary to realize that it happened.
Just that.

Hans-Juergen Kyborg & Joachim Koch





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                 Students On A Mission To Find Life In Space

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:43:16
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:38:02 -0400
Subject: Students On A Mission To Find Life In Space


Source: Australian News Network,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au:80/hed/4309477.htm

Stig

***

Students on a mission to find life in space

By VANESSA WALKER

2jun99

THE search for extra-terrestrial life will get some new recruits
next year when the University of Western Sydney introduces a
degree in space science.

Undergraduates will study astronomy, astrophysics, rocketry,
satellite technology and telecommunications.

The degree grew out of the success of the Search for Extra
Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) centre at the university.

Stuart Hazell, dean of informatics, science and technology, said
the expansion of the SETI program, in which Australia listens in
to artificial space sounds on a range of frequencies, gave the
university a subtle nudge.

"We saw the chance to create a niche area in space science after
we were granted more radio channels," he said.

Earlier this year the university increased the number of
channels from 8 million to 58 million.

Australia's location in the southern hemisphere and the
development of a optical observatory in the central western NSW
town of Parkes give the university the best chance to discover
extraterrestrial life.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                 Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 15:26:49 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 12:44:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999


>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 10:00:42 +0100
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

>The debate on the Hudson Valley UFOs caused me to look at Omar
>Fowler's booklet The Flying Triangle Mystery. He lists some 50
>cases of FTs seen over the UK and Europe in recent years. In
>fact FTs seem to be very much in the news just now, with the
>recent Granada TV series focusing on them. One point struck me;
>every case without exception occurred at night.
>There seems to be nothing whatever on an FT seen in daylight.
>Certainly I have never read of a well-attested daytime sighting
>of a flying triangle, nor have I ever seen a film of such.
>Christopher Allan, Stoke-on-Trent

Surely the first British case, where a fully-trained aircraft
observer saw a triangle flying over the North Sea, counts as a
daytime observation. The witness was a member of the Royal
Observer Corps, and trained to recognise any aircraft in an
instant. He saw a triangle being refuelled by a KC-135, with two
F111s alongside. I don't think you could ask for a better
witness.

Martin Phillips






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:01:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:13:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


In the 'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian, of 26 June, 1947, it's
reported of Kenneth Arnold that, "He said he could estimate the
distance of the objects better because an intervening peak once
blocked his view of them. He found the peak was 25 miles away,
he related".

Perhaps we can still clarify further whether it could have
"blocked his view", or, if it's more likely that he simply lost
sight of the objects against this intermediate 'peak'.
 It's important if his perception that the objects 'vanished'
behind a distant peak, was a main reason Arnold believed they
were some 25 miles distant.

In 'Resolving Arnold - Part 2: Guess Again', Martin Kottmeyer
wrote:

"The absence of a large population of corroborative witnesses
near Mount Rainier seems sufficient grounds for wondering if the
event was much more localized than Arnold surmised. A critical
look at the distance estimate is both warranted and necessary.
One must almost certainly accept the objects passed in front of
Mount Rainier's snow field as Arnold claimed. The angular
velocity of the objects indicated by Arnold's clocking of the
objects between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams is .8 degrees per
second. At that speed it would take nine seconds to cross the
face of Mount Rainier at the 9,200 foot level indicated by
Arnold's report. This is too long for a spurious observation
related the fleetingness of the phenomenon. This would rule out
explanations based on distant sky phenomena like a train of
meteors, Campbellian mirages, or density-shifting space animals.

What of distances closer than Mount Rainier's vicinity? It has
been pointed out that Arnold spoke of the objects having
"swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks." This would seem
to put a lower limit to the distance if one could first
determine which peaks they swung around and if they were broad
enough to have a transit time to regard the observation as
secure. Arnold was slightly more specific in later recountings
of the event. In The Coming of the Saucers he said they
momentarily disappeared "behind a jagged peak that juts out from
Mount Rainier proper."

In his memoir for the First International UFO Congress he says,
"When they turned length-wise or flat-wise to me they were very
thin and they actually disappeared from sight behind a
projection on Mount Rainier in the snowfield." These are not
exactly the same thing, but they give a fair indication of what
to look for on the geological survey maps.

Arnold estimated the crafts were at an altitude of 9,200 feet
plus or minus 1,000. The task at hand is thus to locate some
feature extending above the 8,200 foot level. This yields a neat
little surprise. There are no such peaks between Mount Rainier
and Mount Adams. The closest thing I could find was Pyramid Peak
which stands only 6,937 feet tall in front of Mount Rainier's
base"."


This seems to concur with Bruce Maccabee's assessment:

"These statements about how they flew with respect to the
mountain peaks are very important because they provide
information on the distance from Mr. Arnold. These mountain
peaks lie along a wide north-south line extending southward from
Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams. These peaks were about 20 miles east
of Arnold at the time. These statements also provide the
altitude of the objects. To Arnold they appeared to be
approximately at his altitude because they seemed to be "pretty
much on the horizon to me." Since he was flying at 9,200 ft,
this implies that they were close to that altitude. (Arnold
actually stated his letter that they were at 9,500 ft.) However,
the mountain peaks south of Rainier generally are 5,000 to 7,000
ft high, with the higher ones being farther away (more to the
east) from Arnold. Hence his statement that there were higher
peaks on the far side of the pathway indicates that the objects
were definitely lower than about 7,000 ft. Furthermore, he
stated that they went behind some (or at least one) of the
lower, closer peaks. Geological survey maps show that mountain
peaks which the objects could have disappeared behind have
altitudes of 5,000 to 6,000 ft. Hence it appears that they were
lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold overestimated their
altitude".


In the early, detailed radio interview, Arnold states, "I could
see them against the snow, of course, on Mt. Rainier and against
the snow on Mt. Adams as they were flashing, and against a high
ridge that happens to lay in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams".

If the objects were seen against the snow of Mt. Rainier, Mt.
Adams and a high ridge that was between the mountains, what
'peaks' could they have gone behind?


In a related point, the 'Chicago Daily Tribune', of 25 June,
quoted Arnold as saying, "I counted nine of them as they
disappeared behind the peak of Mount Rainier".

Could the objects have gone behind the mountain, when they were
also supposed to be travelling across its slopes, e.g., "low
over the slopes of Mt. Rainier" and "not more than 500 feet over
the plateau", according to statements attributed to Arnold in
the 'Oregon Journal' of 27 June?

Aside from this earliest 'Chicago Daily Tribune' report, did
Arnold ever claim the objects "disappeared behind the peak of
Mount Rainier"?


Also in that radio interview, Arnold states, "due to the fact
that I had Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Adams to clock them by, I
just thought I'd see just how fast they were going".

Did Arnold ever mention again that he used Mt. Saint Helens as a
reference point, or was this probably an error and he meant Mt.
Rainier?


In his letter to the Air Force, he claimed, "I watched these
objects with great interest as I had never before observed
airplanes flying so close to the mountain tops, flying directly
south to southeast down the hog's back of a mountain range. I
would estimate their elevation could have varied a thousand feet
one way or the other up or down, but they were pretty much on
the horizon to me which would indicate that they were near the
same elevation as me. They flew like many times I have observed
geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they
were linked together. They seemed to hold a definite direction
but rather swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks. I
could quite accurately determine their pathway due to the fact
that there were several high peaks a little this side of them as
well as higher peaks on the other side of their pathway".

This is a much clearer explanation.

There were mountain peaks between Arnold and the nine objects
and further, higher, peaks beyond. The objects flew in-between
this range of high peaks and ridges.

However, it seems these features weren't nearly so high as
Arnold thought and the objects were flying much lower than he
perceived, something that Arnold never checked.

In which case, is it agreed Arnold had no idea, not then, not
ever, that he was observing from what seems to have been some
4,000, maybe 5,000 feet above the objects?

If it's argued that this *couldn't* have directly affected his
subsequent judgement of distances between himslef and the
objects, plus where they were flying in relation to the peaks,
what is the basis of that argument?


The Pendleton newspaper article also states, "The Boise flyer
said they flew on the west sides of Rainier and Adams, adding
that he believed this would make it more difficult for them to
be seen from the ground".

Is this 'west side story' of any relevance in understanding the
overall perspective?


James.
E-mail: voyager@ukonline.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:11:34 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:19:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 06:55:58 -0400
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>The Eastonian Times-Picayune is back, starting off with the
>>usual bird-brained theories about the original Kenneth Arnold
>>sighting.  Bruce Maccabee, myself, and others argued ourselves
>>blue in the face with all sorts of mathematical and other
>>arguments why birds couldn't possibly work  (can birds outfly a
>>plane?).  A lot of good it did.  Don't get me started.


>Why don't we get you started?  Did it ever occur to you (and
>Maccabee) that your mathematical arguments and analysis of the
>Arnold case are only right if you assume Arnold was absolutely
>incapable of human error?

Did it ever occur to you (and Easton) that your handwaving
arguments and "analysis" of the Arnold case are only right if
you assume Arnold was an absolute drooling idiot?

Not that you apparently care or even comprehend, but the issues
of potential human error _have_ been addressed.  E.g., even if
Arnold erred _seriously_ in his determination of distance,
thereby also throwing his timed calculation of speed badly out
of whack, birds still cannot outfly Arnold's plane.  The only
way Arnold could have screwed this up is if he was completely
unable to tell the difference between objects that flew forward
of his position vs. falling behind.

Would you care to address just this one point Mr. skeptical
genius?  Please explain to us with that devestating common sense
you think you possess how birds could outfly Arnold's plane.
Easton never dared tackle this, and I seriously doubt you will
either.  Instead it will be off to the races with a million more
Dennis Stacy angry rants and irrelevancies.

> But what if he was wrong?

Wrong about what?  Tell us _specifically_ what Arnold could be
wrong about in his first sighting that would clearly enable
birds to explain it.  Please, not your usual run-off-your-mouth
garbage, actual specifics reported by Arnold.

> What if, for
> example, he saw another flight of some 20-25 objects not too
> long after his original sighting which certainly sound like
> birds to most of us?

Everything sounds like birds to you guys.  Even if his second
sighting was of birds, it was a completely different situation.
The second sighting lasted only a few second in completely
different flying and lighting conditions and no geographical
landmarks that I know of.  The observations were hurried and
lacking in detail.

In contrast, Arnold's first sighting lasted several minutes
during which he made a number of careful observations to try to
determine what he was seeing, such as the timing of flight
between two geographical landmarks while on a parallel course.

He also reported the _angular_ spread of the objects, again
using landmarks, as the objects flew past Mt. Rainier.  Even if
his estimated absolute distance to the objects was _very
grossly_ in error, the distance between the objects still would
have been much too great for them to be flocking birds.  E.g.,
if instead of being 25 miles away, the objects were only 2000
feet from Arnold (so close that it would be impossible NOT to
recognize them as large flocking birds like geese), they still
would be approximately 50 feet from one another, not the few
feet distance required for flocking.  This is just one of those
simple mathematical arguments, which you ignorantly sneer at,
but which is devastating to the bird hypothesis.

> What if he went on to report seven UFO
>sightings total? What if he eventually concluded that UFOs are
>space animals -- "living organisms...in the atmosphere"?

What if he did?  Do you have a point here?  How exactly does
that change the _original_ reported details of his first
sighting?  How does that validate some silly birds explanation
of that sighting?

How do birds outfly a plane Dennis?

>See Clark's "The UFO Book," p. 62.

>Would this lead you to conclude that you had something
>approaching a fruitcake on your hands, or would you prefer to
>conclude that a living organism crashed at Roswell?

Judging by your typical irrelevant ranting and use of non
sequitors, I would agree that we probably have something
approaching a fruitcake on our hands.

>You treat the Roswell case and its witnesses in the same
>fashion. When they support your argument, such witnesses as
>Proctor et al are absolutely accurate and inviolable in their
>recall, never mind interviewed 30 and 40 years after the fact.

You treat the Roswell case and its witnesses in the same
fashion.  When they support your argument, such witnesses as
Moore et al  are absolutely accurate and inviolable in their
recall, never mind interviewed 30 and 40 years after the fact.

Duhhh, talk about brainless, boilerplate debunking!

Did it ever occur to you in one of your more rational moments,
that early witnesses like Floyd Proctor and Bill Brazel were
interviewed _at virtually the same time_ and completely
_independently_ of Jesse Marcel?  Yet they corroborated many of
the controversial details also related by Marcel about highly
unusual debris properties, or the size and shape of the debris
field, or of Brazel Sr. reporting an explosion?  So if they
misremembered, then you have to explain how they would
misremember unusual details in such a similar  way.  That's a
pretty neat trick.

>When they don't -- as in the case of Kent Lorenzo, first
interviewed by Friedman in >1992, but never conveniently
mentioned since --

Again off on a pointless tangeant.

If you got a problem with Friedman and his reporting, take it up
with him.  Frankly a lot of us on this list are sick and tired
of your endless laundry list of petty grudges.

As for what I wrote about Lorenzo, all I said was that a junior
medical officer couldn't be everywhere at all times on Roswell
base or off the base.  So if he was unaware of anything unusual
happening while he was on-duty at the hospital or off-duty at
the officer's club, that's interesting information but hardly
conclusive, since we have others at the base who have said they
were aware of something unusual happening or were personally
involved.

But only "pro-Roswell" people ignore or attack witnesses they
find inconvenient, right Dennis?

>they must be, what, part of the ongoing cover up?

Like usual, you're just all over the place, aren't you Dennis?
From my post on Mogul paper parachutes, you've raved about
Kenneth Arnold being a nutcase and incapable of properly
perceiving even the simplest possible things, how UFO and
"pro-Roswell" witnesses are never accurate or honest, how you've
got a gripe with Friedman about reporting one witnesses'
testimony.  And now we have your idiotic broad-brushed
accusation that "pro-Roswell" people accuse every witness they
don't like as being part of a cover-up.

>Don't get me started.

Unfortunately, nobody knows how to stop you.

>You, Maccabee and others can mathematically analyze Arnold's
>original statements all you want, or until Hell freezes over,
>whichever comes first. And it doesn't mean a goddam thing unless
>you think he was absolutely dead on and incapable of any error
>in perception whatever.

So while flying on a parallel course at 110 mph, Arnold
"misperceives" "birds" falling behind him for "birds" rapidly
flying past him.  That is the ONLY possible and virtually
inconceivable misperception that would even remotely allow a
bird explanation.

I'm sorry if you find such simple logical arguments like this so
incomprehensible.  But Maccabee and others did graduate grade
school.

>Now explain how Miracle Man, i.e., Arnold, came to believe that
>UFOs were living organisms.

Typical Stacy talking out of both sides of his mouth.  First he
attacks Arnold as a "fruitcake."  Then we get his grossly
hypocritical lectures about how pro-UFO people are so biased in
which witnesses they choose to believe and attack those they
don't like.

But to label Arnold a liar and a "fruitcake," that's completely
different, eh Dennis?

>Troubling, isn't it?

Only to ranting fruitcakes.

>Unless you're the editor of the Rudiak Real Times-Picaynue.

There, feel better now Dennis now that you've vented with one of
your usual pointless diatribes?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                            UFO History Workshop

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 18:37:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 01:57:19 -0400
Subject: UFO History Workshop

Greeting List,

On the 29th and 30th of June a number of us met at the
International Holiday Inn at Chicago's O'Hare Airport to
participate in a UFO History Workshop.  A more detailed
announcement will follow shortly; the present message concerns
one of the first projects we agreed to undertake.

The workshop was organized by Tom Tulien who cosponsored the
event with the Fund for UFO Research.  Michael Swords, Richard
Hall, and Jan Aldrich moderated the sessions.  Attendance by
Dominique Weinstein, Bernard Thouanel, and Jean-Jacques Velasco
of France and Maurizio Verga of Italy gave the meeting
international perspective.

We basically discussed our current holdings and projects, what
should be done, what we would like to do, what as a small group
with limited time and money could actually do, and we approved
several projects which seemed possible to accomplish.  One
project was to convert the "Preceedings," an 86 page
pre-confernece booklet listing resources, collections,
proposals, and comments on various historical topics into an
expanded, "Proceedings."

We now come to the purpose of this message, we wish to solicit
some of the following information from list members:

1)  Biography and UFO related projects.  For those with an
interest in UFO history, a short biography of no more than one
page is requested, please include projects you have worked or
are working on currently. (Projects do not have to be history
related.)

2)  Inventory of UFO material.  For the present please keep the
inventory to no more than two pages.  Please do not list every
UFO book in your collection, but rather the amount of books,
what UFO publications do you have complete or nearly complete
runs, what is the extend of government material, case files,
clipping collections, etc. Please list any unique items you feel
are rare or important even if they are only copies.  Finally end
with:

a) Accessibility.  Is your collection available to others?  If
so, what are the conditions.  If it is not accessible, please so
state.

b) Succession Plan.  Do you have a plan for the disposition of
your material if something should happen to you?  It is not
necessary to announce your plans, only whether or not you have
such a plan.

*NOTE:  As an example to others, all participants agreed that
they would each establish a succession plan.  The "Proceedings"
will discuss the "hows" and "whys" of succession plans in
greater detail.

**ALSO NOTE:  We intend to update such inventories from time to
time and make them more comprehensive.  Please keep the
inventory you submit on file and consider using it as a shell
for a more detailed document.

3) UFO Collections.  We are interested in finding and preserving
UFO collections--especially "lost" collections.  Please let us
know of collections that should be preserved. (If you can give
any details about whereabouts of the collections, description of
contents, and possible contact(s), that would be most welcome.)
Obviously we are aware of the papers of Condon, Menzel, Smith,
Barker, APRO [we would welcome suggestion on how to get access,
here], etc.  However, we would like to know about less well
known collections including information, if known, on location,
contents, accessibility.  (As Loren Gross so aptly put it, "We
would like to know about 'dry holes,' also."  Collections that
are known to be lost or destroyed should be listed.   Personal
papers of individuals associated with UFOs which contain little
or no UFO material are of interest.  Such information will save
time of other researchers.)

4)  Proposals for history related projects.  In the two days of
the workshop we only just skimmed along the surface of what
needs to be done.  Please let us have your ideas.  Please limit
the proposal to no more than two pages.

5)  Historical papers.  Short papers, notes, etc., on some
historical aspect or event which is not well known are most
welcome.  Again, the maximum length should not exceed about
three pages.

6)  Contacts with official and academic bodies--especially from
list members outside the US.  This information would be most
interesting. Official contacts from several countries are
discussed in the current "Preceedings" for Italy, Switzerland,
and Sweden.  Information from other countries is most welcome.

Please consider submitting a contribution for one or all of the
areas listed above.  The deadline is 30 June.

At the MUFON convention, it might be possible to met and discuss
the historical undertakings either individually or in a small
group.  (More on this in another message.)

  Thanks.

Regards,

Jan
--
Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
P. O. Box 391, Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
Telephone: (860) 546-9135





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                 Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 15:26:49 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 01:36:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999


>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 10:00:42 +0100
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

>The debate on the Hudson Valley UFOs caused me to look at Omar
>Fowler's booklet The Flying Triangle Mystery. He lists some 50
>cases of FTs seen over the UK and Europe in recent years. In
>fact FTs seem to be very much in the news just now, with the
>recent Granada TV series focusing on them. One point struck me;
>every case without exception occurred at night.
>There seems to be nothing whatever on an FT seen in daylight.
>Certainly I have never read of a well-attested daytime sighting
>of a flying triangle, nor have I ever seen a film of such.
>Christopher Allan, Stoke-on-Trent

Surely the first British case, where a fully-trained aircraft
observer saw a triangle flying over the North Sea, counts as a
daytime observation. The witness was a member of the Royal
Observer Corps, and trained to recognise any aircraft in an
instant. He saw a triangle being refuelled by a KC-135, with two
F111s alongside. I don't think you could ask for a better
witness.

Martin Phillips






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                          An Educational Discourse

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 03:38:21 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:44:16 -0400
Subject: An Educational Discourse


I have been away at a music festival and have now caught up with
the last week's posts. Quite a load of information to peruse and
digest.

I don't know why I pursued that mammoth task. I made the time
because for some strange reason I am as passionate about the UFO
subject as I was thirty years ago. I must be some kind of
addict. With the work of EBK and the passion of everyone who
takes part in UpDates this has become a vital forum to me.

I originally posted my feelings regarding Jeff Rense's inclusion of
anti-semitic material on his site. That led to an interesting thread
in which a great deal of information was shared.

I once again thank the people who posted background information
on the subject. I hope we all learned some things from this
exercise.

Since I was still mentioned in a post yesterday, I would like to
make a general statement regarding my past posts on this
subject.

In my original post I never condemned Jeff Rense or implied that
he should be suppressed in any manner. I was questioning his
standards of journalism as he seemed to post a number of
political and anti-New World Order articles that were rants that
did not contain any facts to support them.

I questioned his scholarship in doing so. He certainly has the
right to post whatever he wants. However, if he posts material
on the same level as William Cooper it certainly makes me wonder
how Jeff Rense thinks.

In my post I suggested that serious UFO researchers think twice
about appearing on his show as I hope all of us are trying to
keep Ufology above the tabloid level.

I never suggested suppressing his views.

In a previous post I also said, "It feels good to have others
think like I do". Mr. Lehmberg, that was a tongue in cheek
statement, that's all.

I also feel that the points in this exercise have been well
covered.

Since this is a UFO list, to save bandwith, perhaps if no new
points of pertinent interest are exposed, personal debates on
this subject can be handled by direct emails.

For now, let's keep our eyes on the sky and try not to trip over
our own feet. If you don't think it is a conspiracy, that just
shows how good a conspiracy it is.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:02:34 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 03:13:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:46:23 -0500
>Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 06:58:11 -0400
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

<snip>

>> Don't get me started.

<snip>

>>David Rudiak

>Getting you started isn't the problem, believe me.

No, the real problem is shutting you up.

Please notice the subject matter of the thread:  Mogul
"parchment" parachutes.  Now what the hell does the following
Stacy junk have to do with that?

>Now that you are, however, perhaps you would be so kind as to
>answer the following questions, based on your own mathematical
>analysis of same (And please feel free to call on Maccabee or
>others as required. Hell, if you want, you can even refer to
>Arnold.):

>1) How many non-Mogul alien UFOs crashed at or near Roswell in the summer of
1947?

>2) Where and when?

>3) How many bodies were recovered?

>4) Where were they sent? Did they pass through Roswell?

>5) What cover up and investigative organization resulted as a consequence?

>6) If MJ-12, please supply proof. If not MJ-12, please supply proof.

>7) Does that mean that you support those MJ-12 documents that have surfaced
or not?

>8) How much of the Corso/Birnes book is true?

>Sorry to have got you started. But trust you can finish.

>Dennis Stacy


This is standard Dennis Stacy diversionary raving.  A serious
weakness of one pro-Mogul skeptical argument is shown.  Since he
won't or can't address that, Stacy has to go off on half a dozen
tangeants:  MJ12, alien bodies, Corso/Birnes, JFK, Jimmy Hoffa,
Monica Lewinsky, etc.  All are about equally relevant as to
whether probably non-existent small paper parachutes explain
descriptions of large quantities of parchment-like material
covered with strange writing and resistant to burning and
cutting.

But if we must go off on Stacian tangeants, here are some quick
comments:

1.  Body recoveries:  The memo Gen. Ramey is clutching in his
hand and now being analyzed by several different groups clearly
references "the VICTIMS of the wreck you forwarded to .... at
Fort Worth, Tex."  There's no question about provenance here, is
there?  Ramey's standing over the body clutching the smoking
gun.  If the timing of the memo alone doesn't make obvious the
victims and wreck being referenced,  the next line mentions "the
'disc'" and the line after that has "Roswell" in it.  Then
towards the end is the mention of "weather balloons," apparently
in reference to the "story" being put out.

Nah, must have been referring to some other "wreck" and
"victims."  Or maybe Mogul carried some experimental hamsters
which were dropped back to earth with those "parchment"
parachutes?  For economy and to confuse potential Rooskie spies,
instructions for their care and feeding were written on the
'chutes in ancient Sumerian.

2.  MJ-12 type organization:

The following make such an organization quite possible IMHO.
The 1950 Smith/Sarbacher memos clearly reference a saucer-study
organization, "a small group headed by Dr. Vannevar Bush," and
classified "higher than the H-bomb."  Ruppelt in his book has
several sly references to another organization(s) conducting
secret saucer investigations and running in parallel to the more
public Projects Sign, Grudge, and Blue Book.  See, e.g., his
comments on the 1948 Estimate of the Situation (how the "other
investigative organization that was helping ATIC" took over most
of the investigation from Sign after Vandenberg shot down the
Estimate) and the 1951 Lubbock Lights ("The only other peope
outside Project Blue Book who have studied the complete case of
the Lubbock Lights were A GROUP WHO, DUE TO THEIR ASSOCIATION
WITH THE GOVERNMENT, HAD COMPLETE ACCESS TO OUR FILES.  And
these people were not pulp writers or wide-eyed fanatics, they
were SCIENTISTS--ROCKET EXPERTS, NUCLEAR PHYSICISTS, AND
INTELLIGENCE EXPERTS.")  Who were these guys?

Gen. Exon flat out said his information on Roswell was that it
was a crash of an alien spaceship with bodies recovered, he was
aware of other crash recoveries (Kecksburg?) during his tenure
as C/O of Wright-Patterson in the '60's, and he was also aware
of a military version of an MJ-12 type organization (which he
called the "Unholy 13") during his tenure in the Pentagon in the
1950's.

Should I also mention the mysterious IPU or Interplanetary
Phenomena Unit of which we know little other than it apparently
existed sometime in the 1940's and 1950's and dealt with things
obviously not simply foreign but "Interplanetary?"  How about
Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly, clear evidence of
rapid response recovery teams in place to retrieve "objects of
unknown origin" from space, including allegedly downed UFOs?

And just lately, Bob and Ryan Wood are looking into a CIA
document on UFOs released under FOIA which at the end says that
a copy of the memo was being forwarded to -- gasp -- "MJ-12!"  A
copy of the document was given them by the controversial Timothy
Cooper.  That still raises the usual issue of provenance.  The
Woods are now making an independent FOIA request to the CIA for
the same document.  If they get back an identical copy from the
CIA as given them originally by Cooper, that would just about
prove the existence of an organization actually called "MJ-12"
and its association with secret high-level UFO investigations.

There, satisfied?

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 00:40:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 02:35:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold


>From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
>Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 04:19:27 +0100
>Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:23:02 -0400
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


Regarding:

>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

Bruce wrote:

>>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>Regarding Arnold's _first_ sighting... which has been the
>>subject of my discussion.... there is no assumption that Arnold
>>was "absolutely incapable of human error." Anyone who thinks
>>there was such an assumption does not understand the nature of
>>the analysis. In fact, the arguments assume that Arnold could
>>have been in error in some places.

>Bruce,

>Surely it's not debatable whether Kenneth Arnold "could" have
>been in error in "some" places, that fact is acknowledged and
>highlighted in your paper - 'The Complete Sighting Report of
>Kenneth Arnold, with Comments and Analysis'.

Here we go again!  The question isn't about whether errors could
be committed, but whether those particular errors are
_significant_ or _plausible_ or whether they suggest some other
reasonable interpretation than non-conventional aircraft.

E.g.,  while flying on a parallel course at 110 mph, Arnold
reported the objects flying past him, i.e., from in back to in
front of his position.  They could only do this if they were
flying _faster_ than he was, _regardless of their distance from
him_.  His distance estimate has _nothing_ to do with it.

Well James, just that one point rules out your birds, doesn't it
(though not other aircraft)?  The only way it could be otherwise
is if Arnold was incapable of even the simplest of perceptions,
such as telling his front from his back and relative direction
of motion.  That fails the plausibility test for error.

>>But, let's get down to the crux of the matter: which Arnold
>>statements would you like to reject or modify?

>We could start with those you have previously accepted!

>>1) Arnold says he saw flashes of sunlight on his plane. Did he
>>or didn't he? What did he see?

>So far as I can see, this claim didn't surface until Arnold's
>much later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers'.

The reason you can't see is because it seems you don't bother to
read the very sources you quote.  (That also happened in a
recent debate as to whether Arnold ever referred to the objects
as disk- or saucer-shaped.)  Immediately below, e.g., you quote
the following newspaper:

'Oregon Journal - June 27, 1947'

"Arnold, general manager and owner of the Great Western Fire
Control Company, said he first saw the objects when they FLASHED
in the sun low over the slopes of Mt. Rainier".

"Flashed" -- get it?

You also quote the following:

'Norman, Oklahoma Transcript - June 26, 1947'

"Arnold said the strange aircraft were skittering across the
southwest slope of Mount Rainier when he first sighted them".

...but omitted the statement from four paragraphs above:

"He landed here ... and told how he spotted the 'EXTREMELY SHINY
NICKLE-PLATED AIRCRAFT..."

Or how about the following which you also quote from:

'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian - June 26, 1947'

"Mr. Arnold reported he was flying east at 2:50 p.m. Tuesday
toward Mt. Rainier when the objects appeared directly in front of
him 25-30 miles away at about 10,000 feet altitude".

But OMIT the two paragraphs IMMEDIATELY above it:

"The Boise man ... described the objects as "flat like a pie pan
and somewhat bat-shaped' and SO SHINY THEY REFLECTED THE SUN
LIKE A MIRROR.  He said THE REFLECTION WAS SO BRILLIANT THAT IT
BLINDED HIM 'as if someone had STARTED AN ARC LIGHT IN FRONT OF
MY EYES.'"

Since you are obviously referring to the Arnold articles posted
on the Project 1947 Web page, how could you have possibly missed
the opening paragraph of the June 25 Chicago Tribune?

"The first thing I noticed was a SERIES OF FLASHES IN MY EYES AS
IF A MIRROR WAS REFLECTING SUNLIGHT AT ME... I saw the FLASHES
as coming from a series of objects that were traveling
incredibly fast.  They were SILVERY and SHINY and seemed to be
shaped like a pie plate..."

How about the Oregon Journal, June 27, last paragraph:

"They hugged the horseback between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams,
and the FLASHING THEY MADE IN THE SUN reminded me of the
REFLECTION OF A GREAT MIRROR."

Or how about that surviving radio interview (recorded either
June 25 or 26)?

" they seemed to flip and flash in the sun, just like a mirror,
and, in fact, I happened to be in an angle from the sun that
seemed to hit the tops of these peculiar looking things in such
a way that it almost blinded you when you looked at them through
your plexiglass windshield."

I think anybody who actually bothers to read the original press
reportings of the Arnold sighting can safely conclude that
Arnold's description of seeing very bright flashing from very
shiny objects date right from the beginning.  Sheesh!

Furthermore, the issue of flashing or not has NOTHING whatsoever
to do with the issue of whether birds can outfly airplanes.

>>2) Arnold said the initial flashes came from an area north of
>>Mt. Rainier. Did he perhaps get the direction wrong, or is there
>>something else?

>Did Arnold state this before it was claimed in his book, or did
>he originally and consistently say the objects were first seen
>over the slopes of Mount Rainier, for example:

<snip quotes repeated above>

His written report to the A.F. on July 12, 1947, has him stating
he first noticed the flashes north of Mt. Rainier but he
couldn't make out anything about their shapes until they were
closer and passed in front of Rainier.  That may explain any
discrepancies with the newspaper accounts which generally have
him saying he first saw them as they passed in front of Ranier.

However, in terms of your bird theory, this is again an
irrelevant point.  All accounts have his timing of flight and
parallel flight course occurring as the objects passed by the
south side of Mt. Rainier.   That's when the objects flew PAST
him heading south towards Arnold's front, which rules out birds.

>>3) Arnold thought the objects were a little higher than he was
>>(9,500 ft, vs his 9,200). What do you think the TRUE altitude
>>was, if you don't accept Arnold's statement?

>From your detailed analysis, I thought you had determined, "it
>appears that they were lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold
>overestimated their altitude".

Again, a non-issue to the main point:  how do birds outfly a
plane on a parallel course going 110 mph?  Any small error
Arnold made in determining his true horizon (the difference
between 9000 and 5000 feet is only about 2 degrees) has nothing
to do with birds outflying airplanes.

Try for once sorting the significant and relevant from the
insignificant and irrelevant.

>>4) Arnold described them as "flipping and flashing". If this is
>>not what he saw, then what do you think he saw?

>He also described them as "fluttering and sailing". Would you
>disagree that's consistent with birds and far removed from a
>'craft'?

And this has what to do with the fundamental observation that
the objects outflew his plane?

>>5)Arnold claimed he looked at his dashboard clock when the first
>>one passed Mt. Rainier.... Did he get the time wrong? If so, by
>>how much?

>Although I can't see it's significant, curiously, he also claimed
>the timing was taken on his watch:

You're right, it's not significant to your bird theory.

>The question is, if Kenneth Arnold's estimate of the objects'
>altitude was in error by some 4,000-5,000 feet

More red herrings.  It's obvious you have no idea of the
difference between _angular_ error and absolute linear error or
of the possible signficance.

The angular error was extremely small.  4000 - 5000 feet at 25
miles is the same angular error as 160 - 200 feet of a flock of
"birds" only 1 mile away.

Since Arnold was flying at 9200 feet, this means your "birds"
would have been about 200 feet below him, or flying at 9000
feet.  The line of sight is still exactly the same whether at 1
mile or 25 miles.

This actually works AGAINST your bird hypothesis, since it is
unlikely that birds would be flying that high.

It also still has NOTHING to do with birds outflying Arnold's
airplane.  But I doubt if you will ever grasp that.

> - in which case the objects were only flying at about half the altitude he
>thought - then how can we have any confidence in his other
>perceptions?

The problem isn't with Arnold -- it's with you.  You're
completely clueless.  Your arguments don't even meet the minimal
level of scientific understanding. That's not meant to be mean,
but a statement of fact.

>If that was so grossly mistaken, as evidenced in your analysis,
>then it MUST affect all related judgements and estimates.

One more time, James.  Angular error is not the same as absolute
error.  It translates into different absolute altitudes at
difference distances.  5000 feet at 25 miles is the same as 200
feet at 1 mile.  In both cases the downward angle is about 2
degrees, a MINOR error by Arnold in judging true horizon.  I
seriously doubt any of this is getting through to you.

It has little or nothing to do with other related judgments and
estimates nor does it have anything to do with with your big
problem of explaining how birds could outfly Arnold's airplane.
You won't tackle that one because you are completely out of your
depth.

>>6) Arnold looked again at the clock as the last one passed
>>Rainier.... did he get the time wrong? If so, by how much?

>The timing isn't an issue, it's whether the objects were perhaps
>much closer than he guessed.

Again, it's patently obvious you don't grasp the salient issues.
Even if your "birds" were 25 feet from Arnold instead of 25
miles, they can't outfly his plane.  Actual distance of the
objects doesn't matter.

>Obviously the closer these objects actually were, the faster they
>would appear to travel between two distant, fixed points.

If Arnold were standing still you might have an argument.  But
he wasn't stationary, was he?  He was in an airplane flying at
110 mph and flying on a parallel course.  That sets a
fundamental lower limit on how fast the objects must be
traveling to appear to sweep FORWARD of his position and then
disappear in the direction of Mt. Adams .  With Rainier about 25
miles to the east, and Mt. Adams about 50 miles to the south,
we're speaking of an ANGULAR separation of roughly 60 degrees.
Whatever the objects were, they moved FORWARD by a 60 degree
angle in Arnold's timed period.

No matter what their distance, that means they were flying
FASTER than Arnold's 110 mph.  Absolute distance only matters in
this situation in determining how much faster than 110 mph.

But even on steroids, your "flock of birds" couldn't begin to
match Arnold's air speed.

>>7) Arnold said he turned the plane sideways and looked through
>>his open window. At this time he would have been flying south,
>>parallel to the objects. Was he wrong/lying?

>In that early radio interview, he claimed, "I turned the plane
>around and opened the window".

Why?  Because he wanted some fresh air?  No, because he was
checking to see if they were reflections off his windshield.  So
he turned the plane south on a parallel course, enabling him to
open his side window and see if the objects disappeared as he
looked left out the open window in their direction.

>When he turned his plane "around" it was during the timing
>exercise and we don't know if he changed direction by 90 degrees,
>180 degrees, or something else.

More cluelessness.  Why don't you try something called simple
logic?  He opened the pilot's window on the LEFT SIDE of the
plane to get a  clearer view and see if the objects were caused
by reflection. Now which direction would he have to be flying to
view objects to his east flying south while looking left out his
window?  This isn't real hard.

If he turned north or completely reversed direction and flew
west, then he would be heading AWAY from the objects and would
have to be looking through a rear view mirror to follow them.

Maybe that's the James Easton way to track something, but the
rest of humanity would turn south to follow then objects.  Since
they were initially east of Arnold when he turned, he could get
a good look at them by looking left through his open pilot's
window.  As they proceeded ahead, he could still keep them in
view through his windshield off to the left.  Since he was using
Mt. Adams and Mt St. Helens to the south as geographical
landmarks for his timing, he could simultaneously keep these in
view as well

See, it's not really that hard if you bother to think.

>What effect might the change of direction have had on his
>perception of the objects' speed and respective distances between
>them, his plane and the mountains?

You just don't get it do you?  It has nothing to do with it or
your silly bird theory.

>>The analysis of the Arnold sighting has been carried out with
>>the fulfill realization that Arnold could have been wrong on
>>some fine points. But to get a conventional explanation one has
>>to assume Arnold was wrong on some major points.

>Isn't this the conclusion of your own critique?

No.  That's not the conclusion of Maccabee's critique.  Learn to
read.

>As you remarked:

>"So the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of
>4,000 ft in estimating the altitude of the objects"

>How can that be a "fine point"?

Because it was a minor error in elevation angle, and has nothing
whatsoever to do with the BIG problems in your bird theory that
you refuse or are unable to address.

>Has that analysis examined what Kenneth Arnold reported to the
>press in the days following his sighting?

>I've been looking at this and note, for example, that the
>'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian' newspaper on 26 June reported,
>"Mr. Arnold admitted the angle from which he viewed the objects
>would make difficult precise estimation of their speed..."

Why not finish the quote instead of doing your usual spin
editing job?  "Mr Arnold admitted the angle from which he viewed
the objects would make difficult precise estimation of their
speed, but insisted ANY ERROR WOULD NOT BE GRAVE 'FOR THAT
SPEED'"

Kenneth Arnold understood a great deal more than James Easton
about simple math and error analysis.

Arnold wasn't saying he couldn't estimate the approximate speed,
only that he couldn't be sure of the exact speed because of
possible errors.  But faster than any jet plane -- definitely!

Here's another quote from Arnold, which further clarifies what
he meant (Portland Oregonian, July 11, 1947):

"It took 1 minute and 42 seconds from the southern crest of Mt.
Rainier to the southern crest of Mt. Adams.  That's a distance
of 50 miles.  Allowing for an error resulting from my angle of
observation, I reported that they were flying at least 1200
miles an hour.  Actually it figures out to 1381 or 1382."

Actually it figures out closer to 1600-700 mph.  What you
obviously don't understand is that Arnold consistently
downplayed the speed and tried to take into account possible
errors on his part in his timing and estimated object travel
distance.  Here are some more quotes:

Associated Press story, June 26:  "...he timed them at 1:42
minutes for the 47 miles from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adms.  Arnold
said, adding that he later figured by triangulation that their
speed was 1200 miles an hour.  'I could be wrong by 200 or 300
miles an hour,' he admitted, 'but I know I never saw anything so
fast.'"

Radio interview (June 25 or 26):  "But when I observed the tail
end of the last one passing Mt. Adams, and I was at an angle
near Mt. Rainier from it, but I looked at my watch and it showed
one minute and 42 seconds. Well, I felt that was pretty fast and
I didn't stop to think what the distance was between the two
mountains. Well, I landed at Yakima, Washington... I just kind
of forgot it then, until I got down to Pendleton and I began
looking at my map and taking measurements on it and the best
calculation I could figure out, now even in spite of error,
would be around 1200 miles an hour, because making the distance
from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams, in, we'll say approximately two
minutes, it's almost, well, it'd be around 25 miles per minute.
Now allowing for error, we can give them three minutes or four
minutes to make it, and they're still going more than 800 miles
an hour, and to my knowledge, there isn't anything that I've
read about, outside of some of the German rockets, that would go
that fast."

>>If you are going to "complain" that Arnold wasn't perfect, then
>>specify where you think he was wrong and we can argue over
>>whether or not it makes sense in the context of the sighting to
>>assume he was wrong..

>I trust some relevevant points are cited above.

None of them are relevant or show that you have any scientific
insight.

>Kenneth Arnold's original story is a relatively simple tale.

Which James Easton will now thoroughly mangle.

>He observed nine reflective objects which at first he thought
>were geese, because their flight characteristics were similar.

Arnold then dismised this possibility as the objects appeared to
be travelling too fast, concluding they must instead be
airplanes.

In fact, he said "I at first, thought they were geese because it
flew like geese, but it was going so fast that I IMMEDIATELY
changed my mind and decided it was a bunch of new jet planes in
formation."  (early radio interview).

>Yet Arnold never seems to raise any objections to the objects
>being birds, other than the perceived airspeed.

No, he also thought they were flying too high.  That also in one
of those articles which you didn't bother to read.

(Pendleton East Oregonian, June 26):  "When first sighted, he
thought the objects were snow geese.  'But geese don't fly that
high -- and, anyway, what would geese be doing going south for
this time of year."

>Even in subsequent interviews, he doesn't rule out the prospect

How did you deduce that Sherlock?  Can you provide even one
quote from anywhere or anytime where Arnold said that he ever
considered the bird hypothesis again?

He saw something unexpected and unusual:  objects flying single
file in reverse echelon formation.   When confronted with
something unusual, people almost always try to correlate it with
something familiar to them.  In this case, Arnold's
instantaneous guess was snow geese, a thought he said he then
_immediately_ rejected for reasons of speed and altitude.

>due to what we might have assumed the most obvious conclusion - that
>birds wouldn't be visible if the objects were truly some 20-30
>miles distant.

This is so obtuse that I have no idea what point Easton is
trying to make.

>Arnold then decided to take this opportunity to 'clock' the
>airspeed of the 'planes'.

Well before that he said he observed them disappearing behind
one of the subpeaks of Rainier, which is why he placed them at
that distance.  This was AFTER he had already rejected in his
mind the idea that they might be geese.  And even if he didn't
express it explicitly in interviews, at the time it was probably
one more reason for Arnold to think that they weren't birds and
hypothesize jet planes.

That wasn't Arnold's only conventional hypothesis.  He also
considered the possibility that they might be reflections off
his windshield, which is why he turned 90 degrees to his south,
and opened his side window to see if the images would disappear.
They didn't.

>It's perhaps crucial to appreciate that Arnold only decided to
>carry out this exercise because, as he says in the radio
>interview, "I just thought I'd see how fast they were going,
>since among pilots we argue about speed so much".

>It wasn't a result of Arnold believing the airplanes were
>travelling at an incredible speed.

Where is this going?  He said he thought they might be jets and
they were flying faster than anything he had ever seen before.
So he decided to time how fast.  After he landed and had an
opportunity to do the calculations, he realized they were flying
much faster than any known jet, even when assumed wide margins
of error for the timing of the how long it took them to fly
between Rainier and Adams.  (see quotes above)

> He only concluded that after
>first carrying out a timing between two prominent landmarks and
>then later calculating how far apart those landmarks were in
>conjunction with the 'stop watch' reading.

So I guess what Easton is trying to say here, in his own
inimitable way, is that because Arnold didn't realize at the
time of the sighting that the speeds would turn out to be
unconventional, they weren't unconventional?  Is that the
illogic?

>As he timed the objects' - believed to be airplanes - what then
>surprised him was a realisation that they didn't have any 'tails'.

>However, as Arnold related, he didn't give either this or the
>apparently fast airspeed too much thought at the time.

If Easton would properly present Arnold's thoughts, he was
puzzled by the unusual shapes, the precise and co-ordinated
weaving formation flying so close to the mountain tops while
flying at high speed,  their erratic flipping motion, the
brilliant flashing, and the lack of tails.  Still he thought
they might be some sort of new aircraft he didn't know about.
E.g., going through a mental checklist of conventional
explanations, Arnold said he thought the tails might not be
visible because they were painted.  He was still puzzled by what
he had seen, but thought that when he made inquiries when he
landed, some other fliers would be familiar with the unknown
aircraft.

>Consequently, he worked out that the distance between the two
>fixed points was some 50 miles and that if the objects had
>travelled that distance, as he thought, in the 1 minute and
>forty seconds recorded, they must have been travelling at an
>unprecedented speed.

>If, as you explained in the detailed analysis, Arnold's estimate
>of the objects' altitude was grossly mistaken

Doesn't matter -- not important at all, but Easton is too dense
to realize it.

>and that when he
>apparently turned his plane around during this timing exercise,
>we don't know if he changed direction by 90, or 180 degrees, or
>something else,

What blithering nonsense!  Not only is it overwhelmingly obvious
he turned south from other details of the report, Arnold even
said as much.

> then consequently, there can be surely be no confidence in his overall
perceptions.

Easton, the perpetually clueless.

>Obviously the closer these 'fluttering' objects actually were,
>the faster they would appear to travel between two distant fixed points.

Birds on the brain Easton just can't let it go.

>When logic kicks in

Yes, when will your logic ever kick in?

>and we consider that the observation was wholly subjective,

They flew past his plane.   That's all anyone with any smarts
needs to know to rule out birds.  Whether he timed it right or
got the distances right doesn't even matter.

And James, timing with something like a watch or clock is called
an instrument _measurement_, not a subjective observation.
Arnold noting his air speed was another instrument
_measurement_.   Arnold noting his own direction of motion from
landmarks and/or instruments was another measurement.  Other
observations using well-defined landmarks which permit
calculations of angles are observational measurements.
Scientists might then argue about likely margins of error in
these measurements due to such things as instrument error,
misperception, etc. and then see if these possible errors change
the fundamental result.

In the end, the fundamental _measurement_ that Arnold made was
that the _line of sight_ (don't even think absolute distance or
speed) from his position to the objects swept south from Mt.
Rainier to Mt. Adams (those pesky landmarks) while he flew on an
approximately parallel course at 110 mph (instrument panel
reading).  That means the objects FLEW PAST HIM traveling faster
than 110 mph.  That's the death to your bird theory right there,
though I doubt you will EVER grasp this.

>has proven misconceptions and that Kenneth
>Arnold reported a subsequent sighting with similar
>characteristics and which was almost certainly of birds... at
>what point does this remotely become sustainable evidence of
>'alien spacecraft'?

The only one with proven misconceptions is James Easton.  At
what point do any of your preposterous arguments become
sustainable evidence of birds?

If you want to argue conventional objects, then it has to be
something that could outfly Arnold's plane.  Some sort of
airplane or jet plane might be a possibility, just like Arnold
originally conjectured.  So instead of perpetually arguing
"birds," one could instead argue like this.  If Arnold had only
mediocre normal vision of around 20/20 such that he would be
unable to distinguish any detail in an object measuring less
than 5 min arc, then something like a period fighter plane or
jet plane only 30-35 feet long might not be clearly identifiable
beyond about 4 miles distance.  (This is where  one could argue
on stronger ground about known limits of human perception.)


From this one can deduce the downward angle from true horizon
using Arnold's observation that they seemed to be skimming the
mountain tops.  Scaling to 4 miles, they would be flying 800
feet below his altitude of 9200 feet.  Now  apply some sort of
plausibility check.  Is that a reasonable altitude?  Probably.

From his observation using landmarks that the length of the
formation would have been about 5 miles at 25 miles distance,
one gets the angular width of the formation and the angular
separation between objects.  Scaled to 4 miles, they would have
been separated from each other by about 500 feet.  Is this a
reasonable separation for some sort of formation flying by
planes?  Again yes.


Now let's use his _measured_ airspeed, and his _measured_
clocking time and his line of sight observations for direction,
from which one can deduce the angles travelled during the
clocking.  Again scaling to 4 miles, one can calculate that they
would be flying approximately 350 mph.  Again that's a
reasonable and conventional  number.

This doesn't explain other parts of the sighting, such as the
weaving formation flying which Arnold found so screwy.  But it's
a decent start.  It's how a real scientific argument would
proceed from the existing data.

But your handwaving arguments are complete logical rubbish, an
illustration that you've obviously never had any training in
scientific analytic thinking. Cheap debating tricks are not a
substitute, whatever they taught you with your liberal arts
education.

Birds can't possibly explain the first Arnold sighting.  Get it?

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                                 An Apology

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:38:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:38:31 -0400
Subject: An Apology

In the early hours of this morning (Tuesday) I was able,
with some fiddling, here, to post a few of the back-logged
messages. Then the GlobalServe mail-server balked, again.

During the course of the open 'window-of-opportunity'
sending, somehow, the smaller portion of the split-address
files appeared in one message's outgoing headers.

Some subscriber's ISPs saw this message as 'spam' and bounced
that message back here. The Archive at Ufomind always strips
headers from posts, therefore the offending post was only
sent to subscribers.

To those whose addresses appeared in that message's header I
apologise. To breach trust on top of the extreme frustration
of the last couple of days is mortifying.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:59:56 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 13:00:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 08:53:27 -0500
>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

...

>If memory serves, I recall reading years ago an account of
>seemingly living UFOs in Brad Steiger's book, "The Gods of
>Aquarius" (I'm working from memory here so don't hold my feet
>to the fire on the author and title).

>The UFO encounter went something like this: some pilots in a
>western state went flying one day and landed their airplanes
>atop a mesa for a rest and look-see.  To their surprise a small
>UFO landed near them.  It appeared to be in distress due to
>something having taken a bite out of its rim. The bite looked
>like one one might take from a sandwich. The group saw metal
>strips hanging from the 'wound.'

>To their greater surprise several larger UFOs soon descended to
>the mesa top, appeared to attend the 'wounded,' smaller UFO and
>escorted it away.

>The impression of the witnesses was that the actions of the
>small UFO and its larger counterparts were identical to that of
>a young animal that had been attacked by a predator, escaped and
>ministered to by its pack.

>I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing you requested list
>members post but here it is. This was the first time I'd read
>any report that even hinted at the possibility of UFOs being
>anything other than piloted machines. At the time the oddity
>of the concept made quite an impression on me.

Based on the rapid evolution of our own technology, is it really
so surprising that an incredibly advanced technology might not
manifest machines that have attributes of living things?

Even today NASA is experimenting with craft that modify their
own missions.   And we've had the lightbulb what, 100 years?

-Brian





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 12:08:24 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 13:11:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 08:53:27 -0500
>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 99 11:49:54 PDT

>>>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:50:47 -0500
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 99 08:26:28 PDT

>>>Arnold may well have been aware of the writings of the people
>>>you mention. But judging from his own writings, he based his
>>>belief that UFOs were some type of living organism on his own
>>>experiences. See the following, for example:

>>>"This is the same sort of impression [of a living thing] I got
>>>after seeing these same things again in 1952. Two of them flew
>>>under me at Mount Lassen. I got a movie of these, and one was
>>>just as solid as a Chevrolet car. But you could see the pine
>>>trees right through the other one that was following it. I too
>>>got the feeling that here was something that was alive, rather
>>>than that they were machines."

>>>From time to time (though fairly rarely), UFO witnesses have
>>reported the sensation that what they were observing was a
>>living object. On June 1, 1933, a mountain climber on Everest
>>told of seeing winged objects which "seemed to pulsate in and
>>out as though they were breathing." There is the famous
>>Crawfordsville, Indiana, monster story from September 1891, not
>>to mention the tradition of pwdre ser ("rot from the stars," aka
>>"star jelly"). Plus the remarkable case from Biskopsberga,
>>Sweden, in May 1808, a full account of which was published in a
>>contemporary issue of Transactions of the Swedish Academy of
>>Sciences.  Again, I refer interested listfolk to my coverage of
>>these and related matters in The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp.
>>872-77. If any of you know of other cases, I encourage you to
>>post them here.

>Mr. Clark,

>If memory serves, I recall reading years ago an account of
>seemingly living UFOs in Brad Steiger's book, "The Gods of
>Aquarius" (I'm working from memory here so don't hold my feet
>to the fire on the author and title).

>The UFO encounter went something like this: some pilots in a
>western state went flying one day and landed their airplanes
>atop a mesa for a rest and look-see.  To their surprise a small
>UFO landed near them.  It appeared to be in distress due to
>something having taken a bite out of its rim. The bite looked
>like one one might take from a sandwich. The group saw metal
>strips hanging from the 'wound.'

>To their greater surprise several larger UFOs soon descended to
>the mesa top, appeared to attend the 'wounded,' smaller UFO and
>escorted it away.

>The impression of the witnesses was that the actions of the
>small UFO and its larger counterparts were identical to that of
>a young animal that had been attacked by a predator, escaped and
>ministered to by its pack.

>I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing you requested list
>members post but here it is. This was the first time I'd read
>any report that even hinted at the possibility of UFOs being
>anything other than piloted machines. At the time the oddity
>of the concept made quite an impression on me.

>Best regards,
>Ron Decker

Hi Ron,

As you say, whether there is anything to this "living UFO" thing
or not, if your story has any validity, one would also have to
wonder as to what there was around, big enough to take a bite
out of that saucer. As a pilot flying around in my C-172, I'd
hate to think there was something big enough up there that could
start snacking on one of my wings. Scarey:-)

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:47:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 13:17:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:08:20 PDT


>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>>Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 11:04:37 -0400

>>>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:04:47 -0500
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>>From: Glenn Joyner <infohead@airmail.net>
>>>Subject: Black's Open Letter to Friedman

>>>My name is Jerry Black, and I will now state, for the record, my
>>>position on the UFO topic.

><snip>

>>Am I the only one who never wants to read another word from Jerry
>>Black?


>Mr. Sandow, you also refer to William G. Hyzer, and I might add,
>his son James B. Hyzer [who also worked on the Ed Walters/Gulf
>Breeze pictures], and stated that I have put my total trust in
t>hem, and that nobody could be as good as them. But the real
>issue is that nobody could be as BAD as Bruce Maccabbee.

>In Mr. Hyzer's preliminary report of the ten pictures that he >
>was given, which included photograph #18 [the famous>
>"road-shot"], he stated that "ALL" of the pictures showed
>indications of double-exposure. He could not prove at that
>particular time that any one of those photographs were
>absolutely hoaxed, but all showed signs of double-exposure. To
>the contrary, Mr. Bruce Maccabbee and Mr. Jeff Sainio, not only
>in all their vocal support given at symposiums during this time
>frame, and through all their reports they wrote, never ONCE had
>a negative comment to make regarding the pictures. So we are to
>assume, sir, if we adhere to your theory, that Mr. Hyzer made
>TEN mistakes on all of these pictures, and Mr. Bruce Maccabbee
>is correct.

I have commented and criticized at length Mr. Black's claims on
this list in the past.   To avoid using valuable bandwidth yet
again.....,let me invite anyone  who wishes to see my discussion
of Black's comments  please request by email.
brumac@compuserve.com

I will, however, remark that in the above, aside from being
given the attribute of being the worst photoanalyst in the UFO
field ("Nobody could be as BAD as Bruce Maccabee" (spelling
corrected) I would like to point toward Hyzer's essential
honesty in this:)  "He could not prove at that particular time
that any one of those photos was absolutely hoaxed but all
showed signs of double exposure."

Hyzer was correct... he coul not prove hoax.... he could not
prove double exposure.   The statement that photos have "signs"
of double exposure means littl unless those signs can be
specified. Otherwise it is just an opinion... "This photo looks
as if it could have been created by double exposure."   There
ARE "signatures" of double exposure and a photo can be analyzed
to determine whether or not one or more of those "signatures" is
present.   The Walter's photos were so analyzed and no positive
signatures were detected (otherwise Hyzer would have been happy
to level the "smoking gun.").   Just because a particular photo
composition COULD have been created by double exposure doesn't
mean it was. I should point out that there are also signatures
which point AWAY from double exposure.   In some cases these
signatures were found.   IN the first 5 photos, for example,
Sainio carefully compared the image smears due to camera (hand)
motion of the images of the streetlight and of the UFO..   He
found they were the SAME.   In a double exposure situation this
would require that the hand vibration b exactly the same fr both
the initial (model in a dark room) exposure and th second
(outdoor scene) exposure.

I discovered that in the blue beam photo 11 there was positive
evidence AGAINST a double exposure.

All of this has been presented before in gory detail. If Mr.
Black chooses to "disbelieve".... that is his prerogative. I am
well aware that a lot of people think the Gulf Breeze sightings
of Ed are a hoax.... even though some people would accept the
OTHER sightings as probably true.  Such are the vaguearies of
UFO research.

<snip>

>This is the first time that I am aware of that Mr. Bruce
>Maccabbee has been confronted with an independent photo-analyst
>of the quality of Mr. Hyzer, working on the same project. And it
>appears to me that we, in the past, have been misled by
>believing Mr. Bruce Maccabbee's professional experience in
>photographic analysis was much greater than it obviously is. So
>yes, I have a great deal of trust in Mr. William G. Hyzer, and
>if you take the time to look on my web-site, you will see a
>whole page providing you with Mr. Hyzer's background.

It is true, so some extent that there are few qualified
photoanalysts willing to take the time to really analyze any
case.  However, I should point out that I had consulted with Dr.
Robert Nathan of JPL at the very beginning of my research (the
"father" of computer photo processing at JPL).   I also received
input from a number of photographers and other photo analysts
over the years of m work on the GB sightings.  Hence I was well
aware of the criticisms before Hyzer and long before Black came
into the picture.

>The photographic evidence speaks very clearly for itself. Any of
>the pictures that Mr. Bruce Maccabbee claims would be so hard
>for Ed Walters to produce, Mr. Hyzer has already shown how HALF
>of them could be re-produced very easily with a minimal amount
>of experience. He expressed one of these theories in "Photo
>Methods" magazine.

Yes, and th photo he claimed to have explained in that article
was Ed's photo 1.  However, when his theory was tested by
comparison with the original of photo 1 it was found that his
theory failed.... even assuming that Ed might have accidently
satisfied certain of the rather stringent lighting requirements
set forth by Hyzer's theory.

>If we are to believe Mr. Bruce Maccabbee, he claims that Ed
>Walters was a complete idiot in terms of photographic knowledge.
>Here is a man, sir, when divorced, was worth 2.5 million
>dollars. Idiots do not make 2.5 million dollars.

A non-sequitur, as I'm sure all readers will realize.   Being a
successful home builder does not imply being a photo buff or a
photo genius.

>Mr. Rex Salisbury, in his interview with numerous young people
>who were familiar with Ed's son and his family, said that every
>time they had seen Ed, he had a camera around his neck.  Mr. Ed
>Walters was very well-versed in the camera that he used. He had
>quite a bit of experience with it, he was a camera BUFF. But if
>you wish to believe Mr. Bruce Maccabbee, who said he was an
>'idiot with a camera,' that, again, is your problem. The
>evidence doesn't show this.

Ed had one camera (Polaroid) and a video camera.   Some "Buff."
(No photo magazines, no 35 mm camera)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                    UFO Report By Ex-RAF Radar Personnel

From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:22:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:04:47 -0400
Subject: UFO Report By Ex-RAF Radar Personnel


Strange UFO Captured On RAF Radar In North Of Scotland

Date: Winter 1964-1965.
Location: RAF Saxa Vord, Shetland Isles, Scotland.
Source: Retired RAF personnel. Name witheld at Witnesses Request.
Report and Witness Interview by: Dave Ledger

Before I proceed to report on this significant case, I would
personally like to thank the witness involved, for showing his
willingness and courage in coming forward after 35 years to
discuss and log this extraordinary case report with UFO
Scotland. His willingness to discuss the sighting and the
relevant details associated, is to be commended and we hope that
it may set an example for other ex-servicemen to follow.

REPORT:

During the Month of May 1999, I was lucky enough to have the
opportunity of speaking with (for the record) an ex RAF member
who was once based at the Early Warning Radar tracking station
at RAF Saxa Vord in the extreme North of Scotland. This meeting
had been set up by my father who is also ex RAF (retired) and
had happened to meet my source via social circles who in turn,
agreed to speak with me so that I may document the event.

During the winter of 1964-1965 at the location of Scotland's
northern most Early Warning radar tracking station, RAF Saxa
Vord in the Shetland Isles, a serious and relatively unknown
incident took place which was witnessed by ground Radar
personnel who were on duty at the time. The case was also
documented and recorded by the Royal Air Force themselves.

My source reports: Radar Operators observed a stationary return
on the early warning radar which gained their interest and
curiosity. The object was observed sitting motionless at a
height of approximately 20,000 feet. (I asked him how the height
of the return was established and he informed me that it was
obtained by using the radar's height finder on the system.)

The return was a very strong signal which showed up clearly on
the radar as a "real structured object", but what caused
immediate concern was the fact that this particular object could
not be readily identified by the personnel on duty.

Seeing as this was during the "cold war", the personnel had to
assume that this anomalous radar return was an incoming hostile
as it was now slowly approaching toward the North coast of
Scotland from a North Easterly direction. There was no reply
from the IFF (which was to inform them if the incoming was
friend or foe) so the unknown was treated by the on duty
personnel as if it were a hostile, possibly Russian.

For an unspecified amount of time, the unknown object slowly
continued to approach toward the Scottish coast, a few minutes
followed then a QRA alert was sent to RAF Leuchars in Fife, who
in turn, scrambled 2 English Electric Lightnings (which were the
interceptor aircraft at that time) to intercept and identify the
incoming threat. RAF Leuchars was the nearest station at this
time to deal with such a request.

NOTE: I did ask my source the initial range and distance from
the coast, that the radar detected the anomaly from, but he
could not answer me due to the fact that it may be giving away
confidential and secret information, which we do respect here at
UFO Scotland. Reporting is one thing but spilling official
secrets is not our aim. It has to be said that this range
information will also be well outdated by now anyway.

The two Lightnings were vectored, via ground controllers,
towards the incoming bogey but as they approached the locale of
the unknown object, my source hinted that the object seemed to
become aware of this fact and what happened next suprised them
all. The object just proceeded to go vertical,rapidly, directly
up and up until it was lost on the height finder on the radar
system.

I then asked the witness "at what height the Height finder could
lose track" and he reported that it was about 100,000 feet.

Significant point: It is a well known fact that no aircraft on
this planet at that time or during present day, had or have the
capabilities of performing these types of manouveres captured on
Radar or could even climb to that altitude period.

The witness then told me that he believed that the anomaly was
definately exhibiting intelligent control and was in his honest
opinion "Not one of ours!"  At one point, when the unknown was
witnessed by the radar operators to go vertical instantaneously,
the two operators just looked at eachother, shook their heads
and said "NO".

It was further established during the interview that Ground
Radar returns were out of the question seeing as this incident
took place over the North Sea and not over land.

The case was apparently logged through the official channels and
apparently, the scrambled Lightnings got nowhere near their
targets.

The whole incident still remains unexplained to date and the
witness informed me that this particular incident was the only
unexplained event that he had ever witnessed during his career
and that he did feel that it should be logged as an important
sighting pertaining to ufo research and our search for the "REAL
TRUTH"


Technical details:

The Radar equipment that the anomaly was recorded and tracked on
was known as a "Type 84" Radar System and a "Type 13" height
finder.


This particular case has never been heard of publicly, at least
to my knowledge, although I personally feel that it should be
logged as a very significant report, from a very credible
source, which supports the case that we do indeed have
unidentified objects penetrating our air defenses on a regular
basis and more importantly:  The Authorities do know about it
but they dont tell!


Report by Dave Ledger for UFO Scotland.




--
==================================================================
If you see someone without a smile......give them one of yours :)
******************************************************************
Posted by: Dave Ledger  (mailto:UFOSCOT@cableinet.co.uk)
VISIT "UFO SCOTLAND" AT:
<A HREF="http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger/">UFO Scotland.</A>
ICQ pager      http://wwp.mirabilis.com/4851425
******************************************************************
THE TRUTH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER!..................BUT HOW FAR?
==================================================================
"The sands of time are trickling away from our dear mother Earth
 and yet we continue to fight amongst ourselves and destroy our
natural enviroment,leaving all the mess for our children and their
children's children to inherit when we're gone."






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                  US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

From: stig.agermose@get2net.dk (Stig Agermose)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:56:39 GMT
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:09:37 -0400
Subject: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon


Source: Federal Computer Week,

http://www.fcw.com:80/pubs/fcw/1999/0531/web-nsa-6-3-99.html

Links are preceded by an asterisk.

Stig

***

JUNE 3, 1999 . . . 18:34 EDT

Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

BY DANIEL VERTON (*dan_verton@fcw.com)

**

Congress has squared off with the National Security Agency over
a top-secret U.S. global electronic surveillance program,
requesting top intelligence officials to report on the legal
standards used to prevent privacy abuses against U.S. citizens.

According to an amendment to the fiscal 2000 Intelligence
Authorization Act proposed last month by Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.),
the director of Central Intelligence, the director of NSA and
the attorney general must submit a report within 60 days of the
bill becoming law that outlines the legal standards being
employed to safeguard the privacy of American citizens against
Project Echelon.

Echelon is NSA's Cold War-vintage global spying system, which
consists of a worldwide network of clandestine listening posts
capable of intercepting electronic communications such as
e-mail, telephone conversations, faxes, satellite transmissions,
microwave links and fiber-optic communications traffic. However,
the European Union last year raised concerns that the system may
be regularly violating the privacy of law-abiding citizens
[*FCW, Nov. 17, 1998].

However, NSA, the supersecret spy agency known best for its
worldwide eavesdropping capabilities, for the first time in the
history of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
refused to hand over documents on the Echelon program, claiming
attorney/client privilege.

Congress is "concerned about the privacy rights of American
citizens and whether or not there are constitutional safeguards
being circumvented by the manner in which the intelligence
agencies are intercepting and/or receiving international
communications...from foreign nations that would otherwise be
prohibited by...the limitations on the collection of domestic
intelligence," Barr said. "This very straightforward
amendment...will help guarantee the privacy rights of American
citizens [and] will protect the oversight responsibilities of
the Congress which are now under assault" by the intelligence
community.

Calling NSA's argument of attorney/client privilege
"unpersuasive and dubious," committee chairman Rep. Peter J.
Goss (R-Fla.) said the ability of the intelligence community to
deny access to documents on intelligence programs could
"seriously hobble the legislative oversight process" provided
for by the Constitution and would "result in the envelopment of
the executive branch in a cloak of secrecy."


Mail questions to *webmaster@fcw.com

Copyright 1999 FCW Government Technology Group





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:48:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:01:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 00:53:47 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

><snip>

>>Regarding Arnold's _first_ sighting... which has been the subject
>>of my discussion.... there is no assumption that Arnold was
>>"absolutely incapable of human error." Anyone who thinks there
>>was such an assumption does not understand the nature of the
>>analysis. In fact, the arguments assume that Arnold could have
>>been in error in some places. But, let's get down to the crux
>>of the matter: which Arnold statements would you like to reject
>>or modify?

>Bruce,

>Well, let's do get down to the crux of the matter. Since neither
>you nor I were in the cockpit with Arnold on that fateful day,
>neither of us have any idea as to how accurate, or inaccurate,
>he was in his perceptions. My point was simply that you and
>Rudiak can make any kind of calculations you want and they
>remain essentially meaningless in real world terms. They could
>well be right -- and they could well be off by who knows what
>exponential factor. My point was that we don't _know_. And for
>you and Rudiak to suggest otherwise -- as if the case were
>automatically solved in non-conventional terms -- is simply
>wishful thinking on both your parts.

>>1) Arnold says he saw flashes of sunlight on his plane. Did he
>>or didn't he? What did he see?

>I have no idea, since I wasn't there at the time, but neither do
>you. But if the objects were a good 20 miles or more away, as
>Arnold claimed, then I seriously doubt whether he could have
>discerned "flashes of sunlight on his plane." He might have seen
>light flashing off distant small objects, which is altogether a
>different thing.

Amusing.  You accuse me and Rudiak of making arguments which try
to be rational while at the same time saying "I seriously doubt
whether he could have discenred 'flashes of sunlight on his
plane.'.....   He might have seen light flashing off distant
small objects.... "  which, of course is the crux of the matter.
If he saw flashes of sunlight whether on his plane or from
"distant small objects"/..... he wasn't looking at birds which
don't flash sunlight.   And when you say "I seriously doubt..."
how do you know ?  You weren't there.

<snip>

>Your other questions can be addressed in similar fashion. Where
>was Arnold wrong in a specific instance? I don't know. Where was
>Arnold right in a specific instance? You don't know, and neither
>does David Rudiak.

Logic such as this leads to throwing out everything which
doesn;t agree with the proposed explanation.

>>The skeptic assumption is that Arnold was wrong in one or more
>>of his descriptive details. For example, that Arnold
>>overestimated the distance. But he said the objects were going
>>in and out of mountain peaks which were about 20 miles away. Was
>>he wrong?>

>I don't know. Do you? My question was, what if he was wrong?

We all know what it means if he was wrong.... and Hynek grabbed
at this to explain the objects as ordniary military aircraft
about 6 miles away.

>>Clearly if the details can be modified "at will" any sighting
>>can be explained. The analysis of the Arnold sighting has been
>>carried out with the fulfill realization that Arnold could have
>>been wrong on some fine points. But to get a conventional
>>explanation one has to assume Arnold was wrong on some major
>>points.

>So? How do you presume to know that he wasn't wrong on some maor
>points?

Easton has argued that th elevation was wrong and therefore you
can't believe Arnold.   However, I have shown that Arnold's
estimate of the elevation based on the objects appearing to be
on his horizon, uis understandable.   could he have been wrong
on any other points? Sure, to some degree.  The real question
is, which points and how far wrong.... i.e., what to we have to
reject to get an explanation/ This is plain old case analysis
which has been going on for year. Menzel was an expert.... he
offered 6 explanations fro Arnold's sighting.   None of these
was birds, by the way.

>>If you are going to "complain" that Arnold wasn't perfect, then
>>specify where you think he was wrong and we can argue over
>>whether or not it makes sense in the context of the sighting to
>>assume he was wrong..


>Sorry, Bruce, can't do. For all I know, he could have been wrong in
>general. A little more than a month after his original sighting, he claimed
>another one of small objects, 3-5 ft. in diameter, numbering a couple of
>dozen or more. If you or Rudiak would like to exercise your mathematical
>abilities on this case, you're perfectly welcome to. In fact, I wish you
>would.

Have no information on that case.   But, if you can't offer constructive
argument on Arnold's first sighting.... then retire from it.

>A few years later, in 1952, Arnold claimed to have filmed two
UFOs, one of >which could be seen through, and which apparently
led him to conclude that >UFOs were living objects. Arnold would
go on to claim several more >sightings in his lifetime. Lucky
dude, eh?>

>Have you seen the film Arnold claimed to have taken on this
>occasion? Neither have I. Odd that he didn't make it publicly
>and readily available, isn't it, as it would have surely proved,
>or at least supported,  his earlier claim.>
Who knows what it would haev proved if anything.  Perhaps the
images were too small/  Anyway, I haven't seen it.

>>>You, Maccabee and others can mathematically analyze Arnold's
>>>original statements all you want, or until Hell freezes over,
>>>whichever comes first. And it doesn't mean a goddamn thing unless
>>>you think he was absolutely dead on and incapable of any error
>>>in perception whatever.>

>>Not very clever remark. Sounds "whiney">>

>Sorry, we can't be clever 24 hours a day, can we?

Apparently not.

>>>Now explain how Miracle Man, i.e., Arnold, came to believe that
>>>UFOs were living organisms.>

>>>Troubling, isn't it?>

>>Perhaps, but so what? >

>>When the _interpretation_ is separated from the _observation_
>>and the _observation_ is analyzed, the witness' suggestion as to
>>the _interpretation_ becomes irrelevant. >

>It's late here, so I'm not going to address the above statement
i>n any detail. If you had it to do over, though, I think you
>would have put it differently.>
Yes, I would define "observation"  better.  Observation refers to
the descriptive details and history of the sighting with as little
"interpretation" as possible.


>>You seem to be saying that because Arnold in later years
>>concluded saucers were animals, that therefore one can't believe
>>the observational details in his first sighting. >

>>Sorry, I don't buy it..

>Well, something of the sort, although it's not quite as
>straightforward as that. I simply have reservations about
>Arnold's first sighting that are serious enough to lead me to
>wonder whether or not they are worthy of the mathematical
>calculations you and Rudiak have devoted to same, in light of
>some other statements by Arnold.

Fine.  You don't like calculations?  Then go do something else.
If you want to stand up and be counted in the "explanation"
camp.... be my guest and join the birds.

>Such as his second sighting, little more than a month later, and
>his claim of having filmed a living, transparent UFO in 1952.
>(See my response to Jerry Clark for additional details.) Have
>you ever seen this film? Wouldn't you admit that, if it exists,
>it would prove much more evidential than anything Arnold had to
>_say_ about his earlier June, 1947, sighting?>

I don't know if it would prove more evidential.  After all,
anyone could claim the film wasa hoax which Arnold created to
support his earlier sighting and then he realized that the film
wasn't very good so he dodn't make it available for analysis.


>So where is the Arnold film that would obviate anything he had
>to say about his 1947 sighting? Wouldn't it save you and Rudiak
>some serious calculus? But what if there isn't any such film?>.

Who knows what the 1952 film would "say" about the 1947
sighting. I don't


>I trust you or Rudiak will get back to us on this matter post
>haste. After all, why mathematically analyze Arnold's claims
>when you could be mathematically analyzing his film?

Sure.  Get us the film.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:47:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 15:57:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 04:19:27 +0100


>Regarding:

>>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Bruce wrote:

>>>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>Regarding Arnold's _first_ sighting... which has been the
>>subject of my discussion.... there is no assumption that Arnold
>>was "absolutely incapable of human error." Anyone who thinks
>>there was such an assumption does not understand the nature of
>.>the analysis. In fact, the arguments assume that Arnold could
>>have been in error in some places.


>Bruce,

>Surely it's not debatable whether Kenneth Arnold "could" have
>been in error in "some" places, that fact is acknowledged and
>highlighted in your paper - 'The Complete Sighting Report of
>Kenneth Arnold, with Comments and Analysis'.>

>>But, let's get down to the crux of the matter: which Arnold
>>statements would you like to reject or modify?>

>We could start with those you have previously accepted!>


>>1) Arnold says he saw flashes of sunlight on his plane. Did he
>>or didn't he? What did he see?

>So far as I can see, this claim didn't surface until Arnold's
>much later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers'.

So far as you can see......hmmmmm. ..how far can you see?
(Oh, say, can you see.....)

Well, let me quote from Arnold's letter to the Air Force as
found in the Blue Book file: (after searching for the downed
military aircraft and then turning east toward Yakima)

 " I hadn't flown more than 2 or 3 minutes on my course when a
bright flash reflected on my plane. It startled me as I thought
I was to close to some other aircraft." Arnold thenstarted
looking around, and saw the objects to the north of Rainier,
flying southward. "They were approaching Mt. Rainier rapidly and
I merely assumed they were jet planes.   Anyhow, I discovered
that this was where the reflection had come from, as 2 or 3 of
them, every few seconds, would dip or change their course
slightly, just enough for the sun to strike them at an angle
that reflected brightly on my airplane."

Later on he refers to seeing them over the complete time of the
sighting:

" I might add that my complete observation of these objects,
which I could even follow by their flashes as they passed Mt.
Adams,. was around two and one half or three minutes....."

>>2) Arnold said the initial flashes came from an area north of
>>Mt. Rainier. Did he perhaps get the direction wrong, or is there
>>something else?

>Did Arnold state this before it was claimed in his book, or did
>he originally and consistently say the objects were first seen
>over the slopes of Mount Rainier, for example:

>'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian - June 26, 1947'

>"Mr. Arnold reported he was flying east at 2:50 p.m. Tuesday
>toward Mt. Rainier when the objects appeared directly in front of
>him 25-30 miles away at about 10,000 feet altitude".


>'Norman, Oklahoma Transcript - June 26, 1947'

>"Arnold said the strange aircraft were skittering across the
>southwest slope of Mount Rainier when he first sighted them".>


>'Oregon Journal - June 27, 1947'

>"Arnold, general manager and owner of the Great Western Fire
>Control Company, said he first saw the objects when they flashed
>in the sun low over the slopes of Mt. Rainier".

Thanks for publishing the newspaper versions of the story....
please note Maccabee's First Law of Reporting: media in, garbage
out...

Anyway, what I quoted above came from his letter to the Air
Force written several weeks later.  He definitely says the
initial sighting direction was to the NORTH of Mt. Rainier.


>>3) Arnold thought the objects were a little higher than he was
>>(9,500 ft, vs his 9,200). What do you think the TRUE altitude
>>was, if you don't accept Arnold's statement?

>From your detailed analysis, I thought you had determined, "it
>appears that they were lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold
>overestimated their altitude".

>Further quoting from your research:

>"These statements about how they flew with respect to the
>mountain peaks are very important because they provide
>information on the distance from Mr. Arnold. These mountain peaks
l>ie along a wide north-south line extending southward from Mt.
>Rainier to Mt. Adams. These peaks were about 20 miles east of
>Arnold at the time. These statements also provide the altitude of
>the objects. To Arnold they appeared to be approximately at his
>altitude because they seemed to be 'pretty much on the horizon to
>me.' Since he was flying at 9,200 ft, this implies that they were
>close to that altitude. (Arnold actually stated his letter that
>they were at 9,500 ft.) However, the mountain peaks south of
>Rainier generally are 5,000 to 7,000 ft high, with the higher
>ones being farther away (more to the east) from Arnold. Hence his
>statement that there were higher peaks on the far side of the
>pathway indicates that the objects were definitely lower than
>about 7,000 ft".

>"Is it reasonable to assume that he could have made an error of
>several thousand feet in estimating their altitude? The answer to
>this question lies in the fact that Arnold inferred the altitude
>by observing that the objects appeared to be almost exactly on
>his horizon (i.e., level with his altitude). But it is very
>difficult to determine the exact horizon from an airplane. In
t>his case, the angle (the "depression angle") between exact
>horizontal and his downward sighting line to the mountain peaks
>south of Mt. Rainier was very small. The depression angle from
>Arnold's plane at 9,200 ft altitude to the top of a 5,500 ft high
>mountain at a distance of 20 miles (105,600 ft) was about 20.
>Such a small angle would be difficult to detect from an airplane.
>So the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of 4,000
>ft in estimating the altitude of the objects. Perhaps if he had
>looked up the actual altitudes of the mountain peaks south of Mt
>Rainier he would have revised his statement".

The preceding paragraphs were taken from my paper where I
concluded that th objects were probably at abou 5,000 ft. To the
perceptive reader, however, there will be no contradiction
between that previous analysis and the discussion here which is
related to whether or not BIRDS at 5500 ft altitude could have
caused the sighting;

Arnold said that he believed they were at his level.  The
interpretation of this statment is that there was at most a
SMALL depression angle, as I calculated in the preceiding
analysis.  I estmated it at about 2 degrees (written erroneously
as 20 in the above paragraph;  figure the angle of 4000 ft drop
over a range of 105,000 ft is 2.2 degrees).   Now try to imagine
the situtation with BIRDS which would have been MUCH closer. For
example, birds might have been, say as much as 1 mile away

>>4) Arnold described them as "flipping and flashing". If this is
>>not what he saw, then what do you think he saw?

>He also described them as "fluttering and sailing". Would you
>disagree that's consistent with birds and far removed from a
>'craft'?

What counts is the "flashing".   Can birds create a flash
like a mirror reflection or a metallic reflection?

>>5)Arnold claimed he looked at his dashboard clock when the first
>>one passed Mt. Rainier.... Did he get the time wrong? If so, by
>>how much?

>Although I can't see it's significant, curiously, he also claimed
>the timing was taken on his watch:

>'Chicago Daily Tribune - June 25, 1947'

>"I took out my watch and checked off one minutes and 42 seconds
>from the time they passed Mount Rainier***".


>'Norman, Oklahoma Transcript - June 26, 1947'

>"I clocked them with a stop watch during the time it took them to
>fly from Mount Rainer to Mount Adams".


>The question is, if Kenneth Arnold's estimate of the objects'
>altitude was in error by some 4,000-5,000 feet - in which case
>the objects were only flying at about half the altitude he
>thought - then how can we have any confidence in his other
>perceptions?

He wasn't in error in stating that the objects were a about his
altitude.   As I pointed out, he could well have made an error
of 2 degrees in depression angle, thinking it was actually
horizontal.  That 2 degrees translates to 4,000 ft or so at a
distance of 20 miles.   However,  may I sugges you calculate
what the distance down from the plane would be for birds only 1
mile from the plane at a 2 degree depression angle. (Hint:
birds are at 120 of the distance, so at 1/20th of the distance
down fro the plane).   Can birds fly at nearly 9,000 ft?


>If that was so grossly mistaken, as evidenced in your analysis,
>then it MUST affect all related judgements and estimates.

Sorry.... logical deduction based on incorrect premise. Hence,
wrong.

>>6) Arnold looked again at the clock as the last one passed
>>Rainier.... did he get the time wrong? If so, by how much?

>The timing isn't an issue, it's whether the objects were perhaps
>much closer than he guessed.

True.   If you accept his timing.,... then distance (and size)
is everything.

>Obviously the closer these objects actually were, the faster they
>would appear to travel between two distant, fixed points.>

True.   And there are other consequences.   Such as the
depression angle.   Birds 4000 ft below the plane and only 1
mile away are at nearly 40 degree depression angle.

>>7) Arnold said he turned the plane sideways and looked through
>>his open window. At this time he would have been flying south,
>>parallel to the objects. Was he wrong/lying?>

>In that early radio interview, he claimed, "I turned the plane
>around and opened the window".

>When he turned his plane "around" it was during the timing
>exercise and we don't know if he changed direction by 90 degrees,
>180 degrees, or something else.>

Only makes sense to turn to the right.   Otherwise would be
flying away from the objects.   Window on left, pilot on left...
so turn plane to the right and roll down left window. Head
south.


>What effect might the change of direction have had on his
>perception of the objects' speed and respective distances between
>them, his plane and the mountains?

Well, for one thing, if they were birds he wuld have realized
within a few seconds that he was gaining on tem (Arnold..100 mph
or more; birds - 50 mph or less)

>>The analysis of the Arnold sighting has been carried out with
>>the fulfill realization that Arnold could have been wrong on
>>some fine points. But to get a conventional explanation one has
>>to assume Arnold was wrong on some major points.

>Isn't this the conclusion of your own critique?

Only the incorrect altitude estimate.... which was not
surprising considering te distance of the objects.

>As you remarked:

>"So the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of
>4,000 ft in estimating the altitude of the objects">

>How can that be a "fine point"?
Explained above.

>Has that analysis examined what Kenneth Arnold reported to the
>press in the days following his sighting?>

>I've been looking at this and note, for example, that the
>'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian' newspaper on 26 June reported,
>"Mr. Arnold admitted the angle from which he viewed the objects
>would make difficult precise estimation of their speed...".>

Yes, Arnold was honest.   From his position nearly 50 mile north
of M<t. Adams he could not be certain exactly when the objects
reached the distance of Mt Adams.  So he couldn't be sure of the
exact timing of the objects from Rainier to adams.   He might
have underestimated a bit.

>>If you are going to "complain" that Arnold wasn't perfect, then
>>specify where you think he was wrong and we can argue over
>>whether or not it makes sense in the context of the sighting to
>>assume he was wrong..

>I trust some relevevant points are cited above.
and "demolished" above.

>Kenneth Arnold's original story is a relatively simple tale.

>He observed nine reflective objects which at first he thought
>were geese, because their flight characteristics were similar.

No, he first thought they were jet aircraft.  He assumed they
were metallic because of the flashes.   Actually his first
thought was that he had gotten too close to some airplane.  Then
he looked around and saw flashes froming from north of Rainier.

>Arnold then dismised this possibility as the objects appeared to
>be travelling too fast, concluding they must instead be
>airplanes.

>Yet Arnold never seems to raise any objections to the objects
>being birds, other than the perceived airspeed. Even in
>subsequent interviews, he doesn't rule out the prospect due to
>what we might have assumed the most obvious conclusion - that
>birds wouldn't be visible if the objects were truly some 20-30
>miles distant.

So far as I know he never considered that they might be birds
even though he compared their flight characteristics with
birds.. which means he could have proposed to himself the bird
hypothesis and rejected it.   Arnold referred several times in
his letter to the Air Force to his opinion that they were fast
jets.

>Arnold then decided to take this opportunity to 'clock' the
>airspeed of the 'planes'.

>It's perhaps crucial to appreciate that Arnold only decided to
>carry out this exercise because, as he says in the radio
>interview, "I just thought I'd see how fast they were going,
>since among pilots we argue about speed so much".

Crucial? Only? He thought they were jets.  Probably
wondered just how fast the military aircraft could go

>It wasn't a result of Arnold believing the airplanes were
>travelling at an incredible speed. He only concluded that after
>first carrying out a timing between two prominent landmarks and
>then later calculating how far apart those landmarks were in
>conjunction with the 'stop watch' reading.
Wrong. He assumed from the first that they were jets.

>As he timed the objects' - believed to be airplanes - what then
>surprised him was a realisation that they didn't have any
>'tails'.

>However, as Arnold related, he didn't give either this or the
>apparently fast airspeed too much thought at the time.>

It didn't bother him too much while he was flying, even after he
found a time of only 102 seconds from Rainier to adams \
because, as he wrote to the AF, h knew that th army and air
forces had fast aircraft.

>Consequently, he worked out that the distance between the two
>fixed points was some 50 miles and that if the objects had
>travelled that distance, as he thought, in the 1 minute and
>forty seconds recorded, they must have been travelling at an
>unprecedented speed.
This was after he landed.

>If, as you explained in the detailed analysis, Arnold's estimate
>of the objects' altitude was grossly mistaken and that when he
>apparently turned his plane around during this timing exercise,
>we don't know if he changed direction by 90, or 180 degrees, or
>something else, then consequently, there can be surely be no
>confidence in his overall perceptions.

As described above his incorrect estmate of the altitude is
understandable.   This has no bearing on the accuracy of his
recall in turning the plane.   As for the turn itself, if he
turned to the right he would open the left window near him and
look ou while flying parallel t the objects.   Had he turned to
the right he would have flown away from them.

No point in turning 180 degrees or 360.

Makes sense for him to turn t the right, whether unknowns or
birds.   However, if brds he woudl have realized immediately
that he was going faster

>Obviously the closer these 'fluttering' objects actually were,
>the faster they would appear to travel between two distant fixed
>points.

Yes, when flying a "crossing" pattern.   And, if Arnold
initially saw them toward a direction north of Rainier, then by
the time they got right in front of him (and below) they would
have been closer.

>When logic kicks in and we consider that the observation was
>wholly subjective, has proven misconceptions and that Kenneth
>Arnold reported a subsequent sighting with similar
>characteristics and which was almost certainly of birds... at
>what point does this remotely become sustainable evidence of
>'alien spacecraft'?

When logic kicks in and one attempts to formulate  a reasonable
reconstruction based on Arnold (traveling 100 mph or faster at
9,200 ft) and birds (traveling 50 m,ph or slower at 5,000 ft)
one finds it just doesn't work.   Arnold would have gotten close
enough to recognize birds by their shapes and by their lower
speed and lower altitude.

Sorry.... this pelican has its bellyful.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                    The Books Of Charles Fort Now Online

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 05:00:39
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:07:45 -0400
Subject: The Books Of Charles Fort Now Online


Source: http://www.aracnet.net/~fortean/index.htm

Go to the page for links!

Stig

***


Mr. X, Consulting Resologist


The Fortean Web Site of Mr. X / Le Fortean Site de M. X / El
Sitio de Fortean de Sr. X / Il Fortean Site di Sig. X / Der
Fortean Site von Herr X


Mr. X has a great interest in the life and works of the author
Charles Hoy Fort. He is a member of the International Fortean
Organization. In addition to contributing articles to the INFO
Journal and other Fortean publications, Mr. X long ago published
the Res Bureaux Bulletin. Since the demise of the Res Bureaux
Bulletin, when printing and postal costs became excessive, other
resources have been developed, which will allow the rapid
processing and dissemination of information to researchers and
enthusiasts with Fortean interests, (such as the Internet). The
purpose of this web site is to provide a place where Mr. X can
communicate with those who share his interests in Charles Hoy
Fort and Fortean things.

This site is being expanded to include:


Things pertaining Charles Hoy Fort:

=95Books by Charles Hoy Fort (The Book of the Damned, New Lands,
Lo!, and Wild Talents)
=95Short stories, a novel, Many Parts (an autobiography), and
unpublished writings by Charles Hoy Fort
=95The correspondence of and to Charles Hoy Fort
=95Notes written and collected by Charles Hoy Fort
=95Articles about Charles Hoy Fort (including reviews of his books)


Fortean things of special interest to Mr. X:

=95UFO reports in Canada
=95Sea monsters and lake monsters in Canada
=95Poltergeists
=95Extraordinary mirages (such as phantom lands)
=95Spontaneous human combustions
=95Unknown planets (such as Vulcan, Planet X, and the Ottawa Object)
=95Caraboo
=95Articles by Mr. X


New things:

=95Articles contributed to this site
=95Occasional news of Fortean things
=95Ryook Phyoo (a collection of Fortean notes, questions, and requests)
=95Links to other sites of Fortean interest


Communications, (preferably in English), may be sent to Mr. X by
electronic mail at fortean @ aracnet.net or by letters to: Box
1598, Kingston, Ontario K7L 5C8 CANADA.

<snip>

=A9 X, 1998 , 1999








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                 The Millennium Project News - June 7, 1999

From: Paul Anderson - TMP/CPR-Canada <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:07:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:13:11 -0400
Subject: The Millennium Project News - June 7, 1999


The Millennium Project News
News and Updates from The Millennium Project

June 7, 1999

_____________________________


See the TMP web site for links to the following news stories and
updates, as well as an archive of previous news and information
on other TMP resources:

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

_____________________________


WEEKLY BRIEFING

More of the latest crop circle reports from England, with some
beautiful new formations at Barbury Castle and Penton Grafton,
as well as other places. Also, experiments that show earthly
bacteria can survive simulated Martian conditions, bizarre
changes occurring on our own sun, a warning of possible intense
solar storms expected at the end of this year which could
disrupt power systems here on earth (just in time for Y2K) and
the latest weekly UFO reports from George Filer.

In Special Research Projects, a report on how the FAA is lying
to the public in regard to Y2K (and how many of you saw the 60
Minutes Y2K story last week? - very thought provoking and
challenging). More of the mystery contrails were seen here in
Vancouver this week, although not as numerous as on some other
days. One large one spread out and drifted past the sun,
producing a prominent halo effect. Also reports from Linda
Moulton Howe on new "Nano Bombs" being tested by the US military
which may be related to the "chemtrails" and a UFO photographed
next to a mass of contrails seen over Phoenix in April. More
radar anomalies from California and Oklahoma, including
corresponding infrared satellite images (see also previous
reports on the web site). If there is any real phenomenon behind
any of this and not just radar glitches, then this is what we
should be looking for, collaborative images from satellites, and
not relying on the radar images alone.

Finally a reminder that the next Fields of Dreams crop circle
presentation is June 21 in Vancouver, BC at Barlay Manor.

Wishing a good week to all of you.

Paul Anderson
Director
The Millennium Project

_____________________________


NEWS AND REPORTS

* Latest Crop Circle Updates from England
* Bacteria Can Grow in Simulated Mars Environment
* Changes in Sun Have Scientists Baffled
* Ferocious Solar Storm to Herald Millennium
* Highlights of Pisa UFO Conference
* Filer's Files #22 - June 4, 1999


SPECIAL RESEARCH PROJECTS

Y2K:

* Lies, Lies and FAA Lies

Mystery Contrails:

* New Reports and Photos from BC, Ontario and Texas
* Blowing up Dangerous Germs with Oily "Nano Bombs"
* UFO Photographed in Contrails over Phoenix

Radar Anomalies:

* Ring over California; Radar and Infrared Satellite Images
   from Oklahoma


THE MILLENNIUM FORUM

* Next Fields of Dreams Crop Circle Presentation
   June 21 in Vancouver, BC

_____________________________


The Millennium Project News is the e-mail update service of
The  Millennium Project, an independent research organization
initiated in January 1999 as an alternative source of news
and information to the maintream media. TMP was founded
by future studies researcher Paul Anderson, also director of
Circles Phenomenon Research Canada.

TMP News is published weekly or as breaking news develops,
with the latest news and reports, information on TMP events and
web site updates and is available free by subscription; to be
added to or removed from the mailing list, send your request,
including either "subscribe TMP News" or "unsubscribe TMP
News" and e-mail address to:  psa@direct.ca

TMP welcomes your news leads and submissions. Forward all
correspondence to:

E-Mail:
psa@direct.ca

Tel / Fax:
604.731.8522

Mail:
Suite 202 - 2086 West 2nd Avenue
Vancouver, BC
V6J 1J4
Canada

=A9 The Millennium Project, 1999







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:12:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:15:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


>From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 09:46:49 EDT
>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>To: updates@globalserve.net, blackhole60@hotmail.com


>>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:18:23 PDT

>>I will be making a final report on Gulf Breeze in which I will
>>show you and any objective person that all the pictures that
>>were taken by Mr. Ed Walters could have -and were- taken by him
>>in a hoaxed manner.


>>Mr. Art Hufford, one of the MUFON investigators on the Gulf
>>Breeze case, saw an object during the daylight for twenty
>>seconds. He drew that object and went around on national TV [I
>>heard him at least twice] and said to Ed Walters: I saw
>>something exactly like what you saw. But if you look at Art
>>Huffords drawings, there are no portholes or windows in Mr.
>>Huffords UFO. Does it have a similar shape? Somewhat, but there
>>are no windows or portholes. So obviously, contrary to what Art
>>Hufford told the national media, he did not see the same object
>>that Ed Walters allegedly photographed [which shows portholes
>>and windows]. Since he was caught and this was brought to his
>>attention by myself and other investigators, he later stated
>>that there may have been windows, but I didnt see any. So
>>contrary to popular belief, Art Hufford did not EVER see the
>>same object that Ed Walters photographed.

>No, this is not correct. Art Hufford might have seen the same
>object and he might not have seen the same object. There's no
>way to tell for sure since his sighting wasn't detailed enough.
>You criticize the others for jumping to conclusions on what they
>saw when you do the same thing.

Important aspects of the object Hufford saw did agree with Ed's
photos: the overall shape, top light and the bottom "power ring"
light.

And then there are Fenner and Shirley McConnell who saw the same
thing on July 8, 1988 hovering over the Pensacola Bay near their
house.   They saw "windows" and the reflection in th water of
the light from the "power ring."

These are only a couple of the sightings that described the
same thing Ed photographed.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:49:58 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:20:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net


Hell just froze over, Hi all , I had to answer whether Arnold
could measure Time and Distance!!!

>>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>>>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>>The Eastonian Times-Picayune is back, starting off with the
>>>usual bird-brained theories about the original Kenneth Arnold
>>>sighting. Bruce Maccabee, myself, and others argued ourselves
>>>blue in the face with all sorts of mathematical and other
>>>arguments why birds couldn't possibly work (can birds outfly a
>>>plane?). A lot of good it did. Don't get me started.

>>Why don't we get you started? Did it ever occur to you (and
>>Maccabee) that your mathematical arguments and analysis of the
>>Arnold case are only right if you assume Arnold was absolutely
>>incapable of human error? But what if he was wrong? What if, for
>>example, he saw another flight of some 20-25 objects not too
>>long after his original sighting which certainly sound like
>>birds to most of us? What if he went on to report seven UFO >
>>sightings total? What if he eventually concluded that UFOs are
>>space animals -- "living organisms...in the atmosphere"?>


I don't buy his 'living organisum " either,but again if the
Technology is advanced enough..


>Regarding Arnold's _first_ sighting... which has been the subject
>of my discussion.... there is no assumption that Arnold was
>"absolutely incapable of human error." Anyone who thinks there
>was such an assumption does not understand the nature of the
>analysis. In fact, the arguments assume that Arnold could have
>been in error in some places. But, let's get down to the crux
>of the matter: which Arnold statements would you like to reject
>or modify?

>1) Arnold says he saw flashes of sunlight on his plane. Did he
>or didn't he? What did he see?

>2) Arnold said the initial flashes came from an area north of
>Mt. Rainier. Did he perhaps get the direction wrong, or is there
>something else?


There is this little thing called a compass, and for a while a
"remote compass"which was somewhat more accurate than a panel
mounted compass. Which Arnold should have (and likely did know
how to read.) Also, (from my own experience) any one who is a
Native or long time Resident of the Northwest U.S., especially
Pilots, knows what is north or south in the Cascade Mountains
period.

>3) Arnold thought the objects were a little higher than he was
>(9,500 ft, vs his 9,200). What do you think the TRUE altitude
>was, if you don't accept Arnold's statement?

It is extremely hard to judge altitude in the sky given the
conditions Arnold had.

>4) Arnold described them as "flipping and flashing". If this is
>not what he saw, then what do you think he saw?


Swamp gas, Obivoiusly.

>5)Arnold claimed he looked at his dashboard clock when the first
>one passed Mt. Rainier.... Did he get the time wrong? If so, by
>how much?

Well it's a insturment panel, not a dash, but he knew what he
was doing, if he was a decent navagator.

>6) Arnold looked again at the clock as the last one passed
>Rainier.... did he get the time wrong? If so, by how much?

>7) Arnold said he turned the plane sideways and looked through
>his open window. At this time he would have been flying south,
>parallel to the objects. Was he wrong/lying?


Arnold was obivously worried about distortion (somthing we in
the UFO community seem to not  worry enough about).

>etc.

>Any sighting can be broken into a series of observational
>details, each of which can be analyzed, but all together of
>which form the information content of the sighting.

>The skeptic assumption is that Arnold was wrong in one or more
>of his descriptive details. For example, that Arnold
>overestimated the distance. But he said the objects were going
>in and out of mountain peaks which were about 20 miles away. Was
>he wrong?

>Clearly if the details can be modified "at will" any sighting
>can be explained. The analysis of the Arnold sighting has been
>carried out with the fulfill realization that Arnold could have
>been wrong on some fine points. But to get a conventional
>explanation one has to assume Arnold was wrong on some major
>points.

Back when Arnold was a Pilot you had to Know how to figure time
and distance, speed etc. or die . they didn't have some sattlite
feeding you information.

>If you are going to "complain" that Arnold wasn't perfect, then
>specify where you think he was wrong and we can argue over
>whether or not it makes sense in the context of the sighting to
>assume he was wrong..

>>Don't get me started.

>>You, Maccabee and others can mathematically analyze Arnold's
>>original statements all you want, or until Hell freezes over,
>>whichever comes first. And it doesn't mean a goddamn thing unless
>>you think he was absolutely dead on and incapable of any error
>>in perception whatever.


He may not have been "dead on" but he saw _somthing_ and risked
his crediblilty.

>Not very clever remark. Sounds "whiney"

>>Now explain how Miracle Man, i.e., Arnold, came to believe that
>>UFOs were living organisms.

>>Troubling, isn't it?

>Perhaps, but so what?

>When the _interpretation_ is separated from the _observation_
>and the _observation_ is analyzed, the witness' suggestion as to
>the _interpretation_ becomes irrelevant.

>You seem to be saying that because Arnold in later years
>concluded saucers were animals, that therefore one can't believe
>the observational details in his first sighting.
>Sorry, I don't buy it..

Neither do I.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                          Re: UFO History Workshop

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 06:23:39 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 23:34:00 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO History Workshop

>Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 18:37:45 -0700
>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET>
>Subject: UFO History Workshop
>To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

>Greetings List,

>On the 29th and 30th of June a number of us met at the
>International Holiday Inn at Chicago's O'Hare Airport to

The message previously posted on the Chicago UFO History
Workshop has the event happening in the future.  Sorry,
we haven't solved time-travel yet.  The real dates of were
29-30 May.

In any case, UFO History exists whether or not UFOs, in fact,
exist.  There is no question that UFOs were studied by the Air
Force, Keyhoe wrote his "Flying Saucers Are Real," numerous
accounts were chronicled in newspapers, magazines and by
official and unofficial bodies.  While UFOs may be dismissed,
UFO history *does* exist and can be studied.  Many historians
might not consider it worthy of study, but it cannot be denied
that the history of the phenomenon exists and has had effects on
the culture.  In fact, in the study of the cold war or aviation
history or contemporary culture, this is nearly virgin territory
for scholars, something like North America in 1600.  The
Europeans knew North America was there, and they had actually
taken halting steps to exploit it, but in realty it was vast
unknown area, a continent whose actual form was unknown.

The same is true about the history of "ufology."  Scholars, like
the searchers for the Northwest Passage, have tested the margins
with treatise on the history of the belief in extraterrestrials.
Jodi Dean in her "Aliens in American" appears no different from
Cabot mapping some of the coast and hunting for the Northwest
Passage, but starting off with a false assumption and missing
the potential of a whole continent.


--
Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
P. O. Box 391, Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
Telephone: (860) 546-9135





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much For

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:07:48 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 23:34:00 -0400
Subject: Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much For


Hi everyone.

The discovery of these two isotopes of elements 116 and 118 (see
below) which have very short life spans strongly suggests that
the predicted "island of stability" for elements higher than 114
may not exist.  If these elements (and other isotopes of 116 and
118) do have such short life spans as reported, then it would be
very unlikely that Robert Lazar's element 115 is a stable
element - one that has a life long enough for practical
applications.

Nick Balaskas


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

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 432 June 7, 1999   by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein

ELEMENTS 118 AND 116 have been discovered at Lawrence Berkeley
Lab by crashing a beam of krypton atoms into lead atoms. The
three detectable atoms of element 118 have nuclei possessing 118
protons and 175 neutrons for a mass total of 293. The new
elements are even further along in the Periodic Table than
element 114, whose existence was announced back in January 1999
by scientists in Russia (see Update 412), and further into the
"island of stability," the supposed nuclear regime in which
certain combinations of neutrons and protons lead to a
relatively long life. For all that, the atoms of element 118
still decay after less than a millisecond into element 116 plus
an alpha particle. Element 116 then promptly decays into element
114 plus another alpha particle. Ken Gregorich (510-486-7860)
led the LBL group that discovered the new nuclei.  Four of the
team members are German nationals, which prompted DOE secretary
Bill Richardson to emphasize the continuing value of
international scientists working at US national labs.

(LBL press release, June 7.)

<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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                             Crop Circle Message

From: Maurizio Baiata <mbalien@tin.it>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 17:52:51 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 23:34:00 -0400
Subject: Crop Circle Message


In this days I read some interesting letters about Crop Circles
and if this phenomenon is real or a fake.

Strange question. We have spent more than 20 years of
researches, only to repeat the same question?

Thank's God, No!!!

The phenomenon is real. I'm studying the symbols of this
marvelous phenomenon by 4 years. Nobody could create the complex
message that the Crop Circles presents. If we want believe that
someone is hidden behind this phenomenon, the answers are two:

1) An incredible black organization with a very advanced
technology and a great knowledge of ancient symbols;

2) A very advanced and non-terrestrial civilization, (maybe a
dimensional intelligence) that is trying to communicate with a
part of human race (not all) with a complex system of symbols,
only for the people able to understand;

The Crop Circle phenomenon is a beautifull message composed by:

1) native american symbols;
2) celtics and others european ancient cultures symbols;
3) esoteric and masons symbols;
4) semitic and religious symbols;
5) fractals symbols;
6) writing symbols;
7) scientific symbols
8) other

All is connected to form the message that I have in part readed.
I'm writing a book about the message and I'm presenting this
research in this days in Italy. Last my presentation was in the
Conference of Pisa with Michael Hesemann, Barry Camish and
Carlos Diaz.

I can say (and I'm sure about I'm saying), that the message
speaks about a new world that is preparing for a new human race.
This new man will be able to understand that he is part of a
living universe and that the planet Earth is close to a
purification. This event will change the face of the planet in a
way similar to what happened for Atlantis 12.500 years ago. This
is only a part of the message that is possible to read in the
field of corn.

If someone want contact me for a clarification or is interested
to my presentation for a conference (more than 50 slides to read
the message) can write me to my personal address:

aforgi@hotmail.com

All the best to all
Adriano Forgione
Editor in chief of:
UFO Network magazine





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                      Re: Intruders Foundation Website

From: Sue Kovios <bradford@globalserve.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 07:32:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 23:34:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Intruders Foundation Website


>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:50:24 -0500
>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Intruders Foundation Website

>>Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:58:02 -0400
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Intruders Foundation Website

><snip>

>>I will continue to moderate and maintain the Abduction
>>Information Center. Members can simply continue to access the
>>website and interactive e-mail list the same as always. However,
>>AIC will no longer be affilated with Budd or the Intruders
>>Foundation.

<snip>
>>I hope this doesn't create an inconvenience for anyone.
>>It's just something I have to do for myself.

>I am saddened by this development, worry about losing the solidity of
>your passionate involvement, and hope it was not some bland and
>convenient partisanship that caused its precipitation.

<snip>
>You are a true hero -- John; a pioneer. Those that follow
>shuffle in your footprints.

>It was _you_ after all that convinced us that this phenomena was
>happening to real people. You interested the lay person with
>your believable discourse, the wealth of your spirit, and your
>seemingly tireless enthusiasm.

>You did this in the face of all ridicule, discouragement, and
>irritation.

>You did it for virtually nothing.

John is a passionate man and does everything from the heart.  If
you've heard him talk about his family you'd know what I mean.
If you heard him talk about the IF Conference you'd know what I
mean. He doesn't need rewards to make things happen.  But there
comes a time when you have to draw the line when certain agendas
are met at your expense or other circumstances demand your
attention.

Like a parent raising a child, you finally have to cut the
strings and say 'I've brought you this far.  You're on your own
now.'  But I know John will always be there to catch someone if
they fall.

I would like everyone to join me in letting John know we're here
to catch him right now.  Some may not understand what I mean and
some will, and I'll just leave it at that.

John, you're not a quitter and as Arnie Schwarzeneger said to me
the other day 'You'll be back'.

>We'll all live to see your vindication and your ultimate
>success, I'm sure.

>Good luck, and damn the torpedoes.
>Lehmberg@snowhill.com

I don't think vindication is a priority to John.  Be at Peace
with yourself right now John and let the chips fall where
they may.

Bear hugs to you buddy.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                     Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99

From: Richard G Brown <rgbrown@web.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:46:00 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 23:34:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99



>From: Rense E-News <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
>To: Rense E-News  <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:40:01 -0600
>Subject: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99

>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
>----------------------------------------------------------------


<snip>


>  * From Jeff's Desk *

>There are hundreds of short, sometimes intriguing but thoroughly
>unverifiable stories circulating on the net purporting to reveal
>the truth of human ET visitation and contact. Wading through
>these sometimes sensational items is not always easy.  Most are
>rather obvious hoaxes, some are very well written and show
>considerable creativity, while others often contain a mixture of
>truth and fiction that is not easily dismissed.  Most all of them,
>however, have one thing in common:  anonymous or unknown sources.
>Here is an example of one of the many 'ET revelations' that show
>up in our mailbox several times a month...

>>From Robert Collins, 6-4-99, <LesMiserable@sprintmail.com>:

>The following is an account of the meeting I (the source) was
>involved in with EBE-2.

>On March 5, 1983, I was at Los Alamos National Laboratories
>conducting business on a counterintelligence project.  During

<snip>

>EBE-2 explained the weather of it's planet which was dry,
>varying temperature between 65-90 degrees.  There was 35
>hours of constant sunshine and three hours of darkness

I know I'm going to regret this... But how can a planet have
such vastly unequal periods of day and night? 35 hours to 3?!?
Shouldn't they be relatively equal?

Even in a binary system it couldn't be consistant enough to be
35 and 3 every day could it?

- Confused in Canada








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:42:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:07:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

<snip>

>David Rudiak

David,

Arnold claims to have filmed two UFOs over Mt. Lassen in 1952,
one of which was transparent, an experience which led him to
believe that flying saucers were living creatures capable of
changing their density at will.

Wouldn't you agree that this film would be much more compelling
evidence than a spoken or written account of having seen
something?

Have you ever seen a still from this film published anywhere in
the vast UFO literature? Arnold had a working relationship with
Ray Palmer, editor of Fate magazine, who I'm sure would have
been only too happy to publish a picture of the real thing.

In that same vast literature, have you ever run across a single
account by anyone else who ever claimed to have seen Arnold's
film?

For the record, I included Arnold's own account of his Mt.
Rainier sighting as "What Happened on June 24, 1947," in UFOs
1947-1997: Fifty Years of Flying Saucers, co-edited with Hilary
Evans. I have copies of the illustrated, 272-page hardback
available for $19.95, plus $3.00 s/h.

Aside from Arnold, the book contains articles by Jenny Randles,
Jerome Clark, Jacques Vallee, Bill Chalker, Ray Fowler, Chris
Rutkowski, Robert Durant, David Perkins, Col. Hector
Quintanilla, Michael Swords, Karl Pflock, James Moseley, Jan
Aldrich, Vicente-Juan Ballester Omos and others.

In September of this year I'll be hosting the 36th annual
National UFO Conference here in San Antonio. Speakers include
Whitley Strieber, Kevin Randle, Joe Firmage, psychotherapist
Constance Clear (author of "Reaching for Reality"), Jim Moseley,
Tom Deuley,  Walt Andrus, and Linda Corley, who conducted the
last in-depth interview with Jesse Marcel, Sr.

Details to follow soon.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                         What Have We Really Learned

From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:58:06 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:26:51 -0400
Subject: What Have We Really Learned


50th Anniversary Of Ufology:
What Have We Really Learned
by Jerry Black

To all interested parties;

Back in 1997, during the first week in June, I had received a
call from a UPI reporter that had contacted Mr. Kenny Young.
Evidently, Young had given him my name for a telephone
interview, as the reporter wanted my opinion about the 50th
anniversary of the modern era of UFOs.

At the close of the interview, the reporter stated: "I guess,
Mr. Black, that you will be throwing a party."

I was silent for about three or four seconds, and the reporter
said: "Mr. Black, are you still there?"

"Yes sir," I said. "No, I will not be throwing any parties. For
one thing, what have we -as a UFO community- accomplished in the
last 50-years? In the last 20-years, I have watched ufology take
a step backwards almost every year."

"Our self-proclaimed 'leaders of ufology' have let the whole UFO
community down. They seem more concerned with writing books, "I
told the reporter," and staying in the public eye than they are
with finding out the answers to the UFO phenomenon.

"And these are the people who have been entrusted with keeping
the people informed as to what's going on in the UFO community.

"Also," I said to the reporter, "people have been writing books
about their UFO and abduction experiences, and most of these
books have gone unchallenged. Nobody has made an objective,
scientific attempt to analyze the people who have written these
books, it basically seems 'up to the public' to decide whether
or not these people are telling the truth.

"In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the UFO community to
critique these books when they come out, and let the general
public know where they stand after they have performed a
comprehensive and objective investigation.

"None of these things are being done," I said to the gentleman.
"So there is no reason for any celebration about the fiftieth
anniversary of the modern-era of ufology."

Now some of you have not liked my tone. I do not apologize for
that. My tone has not been the way you have perceived it, my
tone is one of determination. Determination to speak out against
what I feel are the problems we have with the leadership of
ufology.  I will continue to speak out against the so-called
"leadership" in ufology, the people that everyone sees or hears
on TV or radio most of the time.

I think it is a disgrace that the Whitley Strieber case has
never been investigated. The responsibility for that lies on the
two major groups, in my opinion. I believe that Mr. Walt Andrus
and Mr. Jerome Clark are responsible to scientifically and
objectively investigate any major case that makes network news -
or to which a book has been written about. There haven't been
that many cases which have appeared in the last 15 to 20-years
to be concerned with, but there have been a few. These few have
been allowed to 'run amuck' out there with these people making
money without any serious challenge being made to them.

I certainly don't expect MUFON to make any challenge to books
that are written by people claiming to be contactees like
Whitley Strieber, or people claiming numerous contacts like Ed
Walters. Not only does MUFON not do their job by objectively
investigating these cases, but rather, they embrace them at
their different symposiums around the country. Most recently,
Mr. Strieber was even a guest at symposium-type event.

And while Jerome Clark and The Center for UFO Studies say that
there are certainly problems with the Gulf Breeze and Whitley
Strieber cases, what have they truly done to make a critical
investigation of either case?

Realizing that MUFON was investigating Gulf Breeze, was it the
friendship displayed by Budd Hopkins [who wrote the foreword to
'Gulf Breeze'] or Bruce Maccabee [who has upheld Gulf Breeze so
staunchly] that they don't want to get involved an make their
own analysis? Each organisation, regardless of whose case it is,
needs to take a scientific and objective look at each issue and
write their own report.

In the case of Whitley Strieber, I don't recall ever reading
where MUFON or CUFOS, ever asked to set up equipment in Mr.
Strieber's home [which he may have denied anyhow]. I don't think
anyone has ever asked, until myself, that Strieber take a
properly-sponsored third-party polygraph test. If MUFON or CUFOS
have asked to stay in Mr. Strieber's home for over a week with
this equipment, then I stand corrected. I do know, for a fact,
that they never asked him or his wife Anne, to take a polygraph
test.

Whitley Strieber, and now Mr. J. Reed, who alleges to have
killed an alien and had it taken from his home, both of these
gentlemen have taken self-sponsored polygraph tests. And why
have they done so? Because CUFOS, by not making a comprehensive
report, and by MUFON, courtesy of Walt Andrus' ridiculous
investigation practices, have allowed Ed Walters' self-sponsored
polygraph tests to stand. So consequently, Mr. Whitley Strieber
felt -as I'm sure Mr. Reed did also- "if they approved of his,
why can't we take ours?"

I also think that the self-proclaimed leaders in ufology during
the past 10 or 15-years have let the UFO community and general
public down.

Again we have Stanton Friedman in his latest book with Whitley
Strieber writing the foreword. Not only does he write this
segment of Friedman's book, but it is noted very prominently on
the outside cover of the book, stating: "Foreword by Whitley
Strieber." I asked Mr. Friedman if he supported the Whitley
Strieber case, or was this done to help sell the book, by either
himself or the publisher. There was no response. Regardless,
when UFO investigators who have been in the business 10 or
15-years see what they perceive to be one of the self-proclaimed
leaders in ufology with Whitley Strieber writing a foreword for
their book, they make the assumption that Mr. Friedman supports
the Whitley Strieber case. I cannot see how that Stanton
Friedman, without taking a look at the Whitley Strieber story,
can support that case.

Mr. Stanton Friedman, one of our self-proclaimed spokesmen, not
only supports the hoaxed case of Whitley Strieber, but also
-because of his loyalty to Bruce Maccabee and what he has said
about the Gulf Breeze investigations - supports the hoaxed Ed
Walters/Gulf Breeze scenarios.

Finally, in the last 10 or 15-years, we have had the crossovers.
Those are investigators in other fields which may or may not be
proven later to be related to the UFO phenomenon. One such
crossover is Mr. Richard Hoagland. Another crossover is Mr.
Colin Andres, and another crossover is Linda Moulton Howe. If we
go back much farther than that, even Mr. Bruce Maccabee is a
crossover, in which he was formerly a photographic expert to now
feeling he has the expertise [which he has certainly shown no
ability for] to be a UFO investigator.

Getting back to the three recent crossovers, they have crossed
over from other fields and became professional UFO
investigators. Mr. Richard Hoagland, who dealt with the Face on
Mars, has made many predictions that have not come true. Mr.
Whitley Strieber, who will brown-nose with anyone in ufology if
he figures it will benefit him, has claimed that he likes a
person like Richard Hoagland because he "lives on the edge." No,
Mr. Strieber, he's not living on the edge. What he is hoping for
is that one of his predictions will come true so that he could
live off of it for years like Jeanne Dixon did with her Kennedy
prediction. Yet none of Hoagland's predictions that he has made
in the field of ufology have come true.

Andrew Collins, a few years ago, was going to surprise everyone
with this remarkable new evidence about UFOs. He held a
conference in which people were to pay $30 per head at a meeting
room at Madison Square Gardens in New York City, and when 30 to
50 people attended, there was no 'new evidence' to be had.

Linda Moulton Howe, who is now on the Art Bell show on a regular
basis [along with Whitley Strieber], while she is a nice lady
that I have had the opportunity to speak with once, can be very
gullible at times.

Mr. Art Bell is what I call "Mr. Entertainer." He has given Mr.
Whitley Strieber a podium to speak from on a regular basis. In
fact, as I understand it, he has retained Strieber to be a
part-time host for the program while he is away. Further, I just
learned that he is co-authoring a book with Whitley Strieber. I
can guarantee that Art Bell has never checked out Whitley
Strieber's story on the basis that I have. He has simply taken
his word for what he has to say. He allows people to come on his
show and he makes no challenges to them whatsoever. It's one
thing to let someone come on your show and speak about their
experiences like Mr. J. Reed did, but let's ask these people
some tough questions. Let's quit playing Mr. Entertainment man
and play the serious investigating man who really wants to get
down to the truth. Art Bell does not do that. Art Bell is not a
UFO investigator, he is an entertainer. And for those people
like Linda Moulton Howe who continue to stay on his show just
for the sake of being able to get their message out on ufology
or other things, I think they lose credibility for doing so.

JERRY BLACK
6276 Taylor Pike
Blanchester, Ohio 45107 (513)
625-2613

Website: http://members.xoom.com/blackshole/

YOU CAN E-MAIL JERRY BLACK AT
blackhole60@hotmail.com





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                    Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting?

From: Steven J. Dunn <SDunn@LOGICON.COM>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:33:13 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:58:33 -0400
Subject: Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting?


Greetings list members:

A couple years ago, I saw a television interview with Leroy
Gordon Cooper where he claimed to have seen a UFO land on a
runway at Edwards AFB.

After a fruitless session of looking on the web, I now ask:
does anyone out here in mailinglistland have any further
information on this sighting?

If so, please email me directly as well as posting, since I do
not get a chance to check list every day.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                 Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:51:45 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 08:56:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999



>From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999
>Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 15:26:49 +0100

>>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 10:00:42 +0100
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Magonia Monthly Suplement 15, May 1999

>>The debate on the Hudson Valley UFOs caused me to look at Omar
>>Fowler's booklet The Flying Triangle Mystery. He lists some 50
>>cases of FTs seen over the UK and Europe in recent years. In
>>fact FTs seem to be very much in the news just now, with the
>>recent Granada TV series focusing on them. One point struck me;
>>every case without exception occurred at night.
>>There seems to be nothing whatever on an FT seen in daylight.
>>Certainly I have never read of a well-attested daytime sighting
>>of a flying triangle, nor have I ever seen a film of such.
>>Christopher Allan, Stoke-on-Trent
>
>Surely the first British case, where a fully-trained aircraft
>observer saw a triangle flying over the North Sea, counts as a
>daytime observation. The witness was a member of the Royal
>Observer Corps, and trained to recognise any aircraft in an
>instant. He saw a triangle being refuelled by a KC-135, with two
>F111s alongside. I don't think you could ask for a better
>witness.

>Martin Phillips


Hi,

The Northern UFO News files feature several daylight sightings
of triangles. These include incidents in Cheshire (l989 I
believe), near Kendal, Cumbria and one just a few yards from my
then front door at Fleetwood (I was asleep in bed wouldnt you
know!)

In my view many of the night time triangles (inhcluding those in
Belgium) are mid air refuelling exercises as several of the UK
cases circa l989 were proven to be. But the daylight sightings
are sufficient in number to establish that some form of aircraft
was seen. That by no means implies it was an alien aircraft, of
course.

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:23:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 08:59:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 12:08:24 -0300
>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>
>
>>Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 08:53:27 -0500
>>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 99 11:49:54 PDT
>
>>>>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:50:47 -0500
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>
>>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>>>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 99 08:26:28 PDT

<snip>

>As a pilot flying around in my C-172, I'd
>hate to think there was something big enough up there that could
>start snacking on one of my wings. Scarey:-)

>Don Ledger

Hi Don,

Hay una criatura que se llama "ChupaCessna." It eats UFOs and
sucks the pilots out of small craft like the creme from a
cannolli!

Watch yerself up there Don! ;)

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 15:32:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 09:15:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:02:34 EDT
>Subject: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: updates@globalserve.net


<snip>

>And just lately, Bob and Ryan Wood are looking into a CIA
>document on UFOs released under FOIA which at the end says that
>a copy of the memo was being forwarded to -- gasp -- "MJ-12!"  A
>copy of the document was given them by the controversial Timothy
>Cooper.  That still raises the usual issue of provenance.  The
>Woods are now making an independent FOIA request to the CIA for
>the same document.  If they get back an identical copy from the
>CIA as given them originally by Cooper, that would just about
>prove the existence of an organization actually called "MJ-12"
>and its association with secret high-level UFO investigations.

>There, satisfied?

>David Rudiak


David,

Looking at my copy of the document, as published in the March,
1999, MUFON UFO Journal, p. 11, there is nothing to indicate
that the document is about UFOs. Its subject matter is "Project
63 (UF-103-M)," whatever that might be.

From the text itself, it's impossible to tell what the hell
Hilenkoetter was talking about. Whatever it was, it seems to
involve the Bureau of Mines, the National Bureau of Standards
and the Department of Commerce, all rather odd bedfellows, one
might argue, for MJ-12.

Having seen Dr. Wood's take on the Corso-Birnes historical fairy
tale, however, also published in the Journal, I'm not overly
impressed by any analytical abilities he brings to the issue of
document authentification. Nor was Tom Deuley, who routinely
handled the real thing during a stint at NSA. See his response
to the Wood piece in the May 1999 Journal.

A brief aside on the Corso-Birnes fantasy. A couple of weeks
ago, I came across the obituary in the NY Times of the woman who
invented Kevlar. I meant to post it at the time, but didn't.
Another terrestrial scientist defamed by that dubious duo.

Cheers,

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                'Parchment Parachutes' - Prof. Moore Explains

From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 02:12:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:44:38 -0400
Subject: 'Parchment Parachutes' - Prof. Moore Explains


Following recent discussions concerning the 'parchment', or
'tough paper' described by some witnesses to the 'Roswell'
debris, I am indebted, as we should all be, to Bob Todd for the
following.

Having mentioned the technical queries to Prof. Charles Moore,
Bob has kindly taken the time to pass on, with permission of
course, an unexpected response.

This contains significant details that I have personally never
seen clarified and which may be explained here for the first
time, definitively resolving the question of those 'parchment
parachutes'.

Prof. Moore writes:

"This is a belated response with a few comments on the extended
outburst from [David] Rudiak on the subject of "MOGUL parchment"
parachutes.

First. I still have one of the ML-132 parachutes (of the
original Word War II design) used to lower radiosondes to Earth
after the 350 gram, ML-131 sounding balloon burst at the end of
its ascent. This parachute is made with a rather tough, red,
parchment-like paper, a wicker hoop that holds the parachute
open for easy inflation and eight "risers" made of cotton
twine. The paper canopy would be about 59 inches in diameter if
it could be laid out flat; each of the 8 triangular gores is
about 29 inches long. The paper is unusual; it's stiff and has
been treated to prevent absorption of water.

When stretched out as in the load line in an NYU flight train,
the distance from the center of the canopy to the point beneath
the wicker ring where the 8 risers came together is about 64
inches.

The 8 risers are strong enough to support a 3 pound radiosonde
but are too weak to be withstand the 30 pound or so pull that
would have been needed in one of the NYU flight trains used in
1947.  We reinforced these parachutes by tying a 60 inch long,
500 pound test nylon line between the top center of the
parachute and the bottom of the risers (through the wicker hoop)
so that, in flight, the risers were slack and carried none of
the load. If the parachute were to inflate on descent, the
canopy would distend such that the distance from the center of
the canopy and the load attachment point would be much less than
60 inches such that the 500 pound test nylon line would be slack
and would not interfere with the parachute deployment. The
parachute reinforcement consisted of no more than the tying of a
strong nylon line between the apex of the uninflated,
stretched-out parachute and the load attachment point at the
bottom. It was no big deal.

The pre-war radiosonde parachutes developed by the Weather
Bureau were made of silk; when the Signal Corps began procuring
parachutes for the U. S. Army, they followed the Weather Bureau
design but shifted to the water-resistant paper after silk was
no longer available in 1942. In 1947, the NYU group was
furnished with both paper and some silk parachutes (and radar
targets) from the Signal Corps supplies at Evans Signal
Laboratories. As I remember, we preferred the scarcer silk
parachutes because they were stronger and lighter. Since both
types of parachute were adequate for our purpose which was to
prevent free-fall of the instruments from high-altitude, there
was no reason to record which type was used on a given flight
and this sort of inconsequential detail was not recorded.  I
suspect that in drawing up the records for a given flight, our
data analysts used the available information on the flight train
including what had been planned earlier, back in New York, and
not what had actually been available and used in Alamogordo. I
have no idea as to which version of ML-132 parachute was used on
NYU Flight 4 but the fact that a rather tough, parchment-like
paper was found along with debris  with pink-purple, flower-like
figures suggests to me that the debris included part of a ML-132
paper parachute.

Despite Rudiak's information, there is (and was) no metal used
in a ML-132 parachute of the types that we used. And contrary to
Rudiak's assertion, the ML-132 parachutes were NOT like "tiny
toy paper parasols they sometimes stick in alcohol drinks to be
cute".

The ML-132 parachutes were used on the early neoprene-balloon
flights because those balloons burst suddenly and Dr. Peoples
was concerned about free-falling objects being a hazard when
they came to Earth. Having demonstrated to Dr. Peoples that
there was little danger of free-falling instruments from cluster
flights, we used no parachutes on the HELIOS-configured Flight
7. The later polyethylene balloons such as used on NYU Flights
8, 10, 11, 12 did not fail catastrophically and so, no
parachutes were used on these flights.  On the other hand, the
General Mills people under Project SKYHOOK carried cosmic ray
measuring instruments aloft suspended under standard, 24-foot
diameter, nylon personnel parachutes. The payloads were
recovered by cutting the suspension between the top of the
parachutes and the balloons floating at high altitudes.  The
General Mills people and SKYHOOK never employed the ML-132
radiosonde parachute; all of the  payloads were far too heavy
for such an insignificant parachute.

The reason that we made an effort to recover NYU Flight 5 and
the absence from the Brazel debris of other portions of the NYU
Flight 4 train are both discussed in some detail in my chapter
in the 1997 by Saler et al".


Both Bob and Prof. Moore express they have no further interest
whatsoever in 'Roswell' discussions and this is an exception.


James.
E-mail: voyager@ukonline.co.uk
Voyager On-line: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:34:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:42:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold


>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:01:40 -0400
>Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:13:19 -0400
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>In the 'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian, of 26 June, 1947, it's
>reported of Kenneth Arnold that, "He said he could estimate the
>distance of the objects better because an intervening peak once
>blocked his view of them. He found the peak was 25 miles away,
>he related".

>Perhaps we can still clarify further whether it could have
>"blocked his view", or, if it's more likely that he simply lost
>sight of the objects against this intermediate 'peak'.
> It's important if his perception that the objects 'vanished'
>behind a distant peak, was a main reason Arnold believed they
>were some 25 miles distant.

Also because they appeared to be skimming and snaking around
other peaks of the southern Cascade range.  If you look at a
topo map, there isn't anything between Arnold's position and the
Cascades that could have obscured his view.

>In 'Resolving Arnold - Part 2: Guess Again', Martin Kottmeyer wrote:

>"The absence of a large population of corroborative witnesses
>near Mount Rainier seems sufficient grounds for wondering if the
>event was much more localized than Arnold surmised.

Not really.  Not only is the area of the sighting _very_
sparsely populated even today, the sighting took place midweek
instead of a weekend, so that potental vacationers from nearby
cities like Seattle and Tacoma would be less likely to be there.

Add to this the fact that the region is extremely rugged, and
that from the ground the views are extremely limited by such
things as surrounding mountains and trees.  I took a detour off
the interstate last year while driving home from Seattle, drove
south on Highway 7, which takes you past Mineral, where Arnold's
sighting took place.  That's about 30 miles of mountain road,
where you are about 25-30 miles from Rainier and the Cascades at
all times.

I thought the views of Rainier and the southern Cascades would
be magnificent -- right?  Wrong!  The road follows mountain
valleys and fir trees line the road the entire way.  I saw
Rainier only once the entire time, through one valley that
happened to penetrate the mountain barrier to the east.

Even if somebody had been closer to the Cascades and directly
under the flight path of the objects; high speeds would have
limited the chance for observation to a few seconds at most.
They could whiz right over your head and be gone before you even
knew they were there.  E.g., if some camper was at the 3500 foot
level, the objects were flying directly overhead at around the
5000 foot level (see arguments below on altitude), and they were
flying at Arnold's calculated speed of 1200+ mph, or 20+
miles/min, or 1mile every 3 seconds, or 1700+ feet/sec, the
objects would cover a 60 degree arc of sky in only a second.
Whoosh -- they're gone!

On a clear day, Rainier is easily seen from from Seattle and
Tacoma; in fact it dominates the horizon.  However, it's also
further away and it would have been harder to see anything.
Arnold thought he lost sight of them near Mt. Adams, 50 miles
away.  Seattle is about 40 miles from Rainier.

 I did find one newspaper report from the  "Tacoma News
Tribune," June 30, which weakly corroborated Arnold's sighting.
"Mrs. Mary Hartwell, Rt. 1, Box 531, Spanaway [southeastern
Tacoma] said Friday [June 27] she had seen 'nine planes' very
high in the air 'two or three days ago.'  She said they had the
appearance of geese, but definitely were silver colored planes."

Like I said, pretty weak and also vague.   The date might be
right but the time isn't given.  "Very high in the air" also
isn't very clear.  No impression of speed is given either.
Rainier would have been about 35 miles southeast of Mrs.
Hartwell.  Arnold would have been 20 miles SSE of her position.
If Hartwell saw the same 9 objects as Arnold, they should have
been low to the horizon from her vantage point.  If "very high
in the air" meant high angular elevation, then she was reporting
something else, maybe even geese, heaven forbid!

There was also prospector Fred Johnson's close-up report from
Mt. Adams which started at the same time Arnold's ended when
Arnold lost sight of the objects near Mt. Adams.

We also have corroboration in the form of other multi-object
sightings, but at other times and places, such as the well-known
United Airlines sighting of July 4 over Idaho, in which 9
objects were sighted by a crew of 3 for around 10 minutes before
vanishing in an instant.  Clearly not birds, unless birds could
keep up with a DC-3 for 10 minutes.

> A critical
>look at the distance estimate is both warranted and necessary.
>One must almost certainly accept the objects passed in front of
>Mount Rainier's snow field as Arnold claimed. The angular
>velocity of the objects indicated by Arnold's clocking of the
>objects between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams is .8 degrees per
>second. At that speed it would take nine seconds to cross the
>face of Mount Rainier at the 9,200 foot level indicated by
>Arnold's report.

I basically agree with this, and just want to add that if they
were actually down around 5000 feet as they crossed the face of
Mt. Rainier, the width is closer to 10 miles, and it would have
taken closer to 30 seconds to cross the face.

> This is too long for a spurious observation
>related the fleetingness of the phenomenon. This would rule out
>explanations based on distant sky phenomena like a train of
>meteors, Campbellian mirages, or density-shifting space animals.

OK, no problems with this.  Basically Arnold had sufficient time
to make some unhurried observations as they passed the face of
Rainier.

>What of distances closer than Mount Rainier's vicinity? It has
>been pointed out that Arnold spoke of the objects having
>"swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks." This would seem
>to put a lower limit to the distance if one could first
>determine which peaks they swung around and if they were broad
>enough to have a transit time to regard the observation as
>secure. Arnold was slightly more specific in later recountings
>of the event. In The Coming of the Saucers he said they
>momentarily disappeared "behind a jagged peak that juts out from
>Mount Rainier proper."

The earliest quote I can find on this was in the Portland
Oregonian, July 11, 1947:  "I reckoned the saucers were 23 miles
away, because they flew behind one of the peaks of Mt. Rainier,
I can show ont he map exactly where the peak is and where I
was."

>In his memoir for the First International UFO Congress he says,
>"When they turned length-wise or flat-wise to me they were very
>thin and they actually disappeared from sight behind a
>projection on Mount Rainier in the snowfield." These are not
>exactly the same thing, but they give a fair indication of what
>to look for on the geological survey maps.

>Arnold estimated the crafts were at an altitude of 9,200 feet
>plus or minus 1,000. The task at hand is thus to locate some
>feature extending above the 8,200 foot level. This yields a neat
>little surprise. There are no such peaks between Mount Rainier
>and Mount Adams. The closest thing I could find was Pyramid Peak
>which stands only 6,937 feet tall in front of Mount Rainier's
>base"."

>This seems to concur with Bruce Maccabee's assessment:

Pyramid Peak is a possibility, but is extremely narrow, only a
quarter mile wide at most.  That means that at the speeds Arnold
was reporting, they would have disappeared from view for maybe a
maximum of 3/4 second.  That might be hard to observe reliably.

Directly below Pyramid about 1 mile to the southwest is Iron
Mountain, about 1800 m or 5900 feet high and with a wider
concealing base approaching 1 mile. The saddleback behind the
peak is down at around the 1600 m or 5000 foot level.  Here they
could disappear possibly up to 2-3 seconds.   That would be
easier for Arnold to observe.  This elevation also fits in
better with them coming off the slopes of Rainier and appearing
to skim the southern Cascades, which are at about the same
elevation.

>"These statements about how they flew with respect to the
>mountain peaks are very important because they provide
>information on the distance from Mr. Arnold. These mountain
>peaks lie along a wide north-south line extending southward from
>Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams. These peaks were about 20 miles east
>of Arnold at the time. These statements also provide the
>altitude of the objects. To Arnold they appeared to be
>approximately at his altitude because they seemed to be "pretty
>much on the horizon to me." Since he was flying at 9,200 ft,
>this implies that they were close to that altitude. (Arnold
>actually stated his letter that they were at 9,500 ft.) However,
>the mountain peaks south of Rainier generally are 5,000 to 7,000
>ft high, with the higher ones being farther away (more to the
>east) from Arnold.

The important point here is that the taller peaks tend to be
_further_ away.  There were no mountains between Arnold and the
lower portions of the Cascades to obscure his view.  If he did
see them disappear behind some of these peaks, they were at
least 25 miles away.

> Hence his statement that there were higher
>peaks on the far side of the pathway indicates that the objects
>were definitely lower than about 7,000 ft. Furthermore, he
>stated that they went behind some (or at least one) of the
>lower, closer peaks. Geological survey maps show that mountain
>peaks which the objects could have disappeared behind have
>altitudes of 5,000 to 6,000 ft. Hence it appears that they were
>lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold overestimated their
>altitude".

But overestimated their _angular_ elevation relative to him only
slightly -- an important distinction.

>In the early, detailed radio interview, Arnold states, "I could
>see them against the snow, of course, on Mt. Rainier and against
>the snow on Mt. Adams as they were flashing, and against a high
>ridge that happens to lay in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams".

>If the objects were seen against the snow of Mt. Rainier, Mt.
>Adams and a high ridge that was between the mountains, what
>'peaks' could they have gone behind?

This is covered in detail below, and places the closest possible
approach of the objects at about15 miles.

>In a related point, the 'Chicago Daily Tribune', of 25 June,
>quoted Arnold as saying, "I counted nine of them as they
>disappeared behind the peak of Mount Rainier".

>Could the objects have gone behind the mountain, when they were
>also supposed to be travelling across its slopes, e.g., "low
>over the slopes of Mt. Rainier" and "not more than 500 feet over
>the plateau", according to statements attributed to Arnold in
>the 'Oregon Journal' of 27 June?

>Aside from this earliest 'Chicago Daily Tribune' report, did
>Arnold ever claim the objects "disappeared behind the peak of
>Mount Rainier"?

Not that I know of.  It sounds like an instance of where the
reporter misunderstood Arnold and misquoted him.  Arnold
probably said the objects disappeared behind ONE OF the peaks of
Mt. Rainier, as he said and wrote elsewhere.

>Also in that radio interview, Arnold states, "due to the fact
>that I had Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Adams to clock them by, I
>just thought I'd see just how fast they were going".

>Did Arnold ever mention again that he used Mt. Saint Helens as a
>reference point, or was this probably an error and he meant Mt.
>Rainier?

St. Helens and Adams are both about 50 miles south of Rainier
and equidistant from it, St. Helens about 20 miles west and
Adams about 20 miles east.  For objects on a southerly
trajectory, both were potential landmarks that Arnold could use
when he first started timing.  St. Helens would have been due
south of Arnold's position, whereas Adams was more to the
southeast.

As it was, the objects' trajectory took them in the
line-of-sight vicinity of Adams where Arnold saw them disappear.
St. Helens dropped from the report since it wasn't involved
thereafter.

>In his letter to the Air Force, he claimed, "I watched these
>objects with great interest as I had never before observed
>airplanes flying so close to the mountain tops, flying directly
>south to southeast down the hog's back of a mountain range. I
>would estimate their elevation could have varied a thousand feet
>one way or the other up or down, but they were pretty much on
>the horizon to me which would indicate that they were near the
>same elevation as me.

And that's how Arnold made his mistake in elevation, by assuming
the mountain tops were on the same level as he was, instead of
about 2 degrees below.

>They flew like many times I have observed
>geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they
>were linked together. They seemed to hold a definite direction
>but rather swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks. I
>could quite accurately determine their pathway due to the fact
>that there were several high peaks a little this side of them as
>well as higher peaks on the other side of their pathway".

>This is a much clearer explanation.

>There were mountain peaks between Arnold and the nine objects
>and further, higher, peaks beyond. The objects flew in-between
>this range of high peaks and ridges.

>However, it seems these features weren't nearly so high as
>Arnold thought and the objects were flying much lower than he
>perceived, something that Arnold never checked.

>In which case, is it agreed Arnold had no idea, not then, not
>ever, that he was observing from what seems to have been some
>4,000, maybe 5,000 feet above the objects?

The only thing that can be agreed on is that Arnold reported the
objects flying across the snowfields of Rainier, seeming to
disappear behind one of the subpeaks, and then seeming to skim
and weave around the peaks and ridges of the southern Cascade
range.

Collectively this means their _angular_ elevation relative to
Arnold was very close to Arnold's true horizon (0 degrees at
9200 feet).  If we assume the typical absolute elevation of the
southern Cascades is around 5000 feet and they were indeed
flying over the Cascades, then they were flying at around 5000
feet, or about 2 degrees below true horizon.  The actual error
that Arnold made was not in estimating absolute altitude, as
James Easton perpetually thinks, but in determining his true
horizon.  He thought it was at distant mountain peak level,
which if true would have placed the altitude near that of his
plane.

Now exactly how high the objects were in _absolute_ (not
angular) elevation, depends on how far away they were.  If they
were James Easton "birds," only a few thousand feet away, then
they would have been only a few hundred feet below his plane's
altitude, (not 4000 to 5000 feet below).   E.g., at 2500 feet
distance instead of 25 miles, they would have been 100 feet
lower than the plane, or at 9100 feet.  That's the same small
_angular_ down angle as 5000 feet at 25 miles.

>If it's argued that this *couldn't* have directly affected his
>subsequent judgement of distances between himslef and the
>objects, plus where they were flying in relation to the peaks,
>what is the basis of that argument?

If I understand this convoluted statement properly, Easton is
arguing that the objects were _much_ closer and flying behind
peaks and ridges that were also much closer.  Once again Easton
obviously doesn't understand the simple distinction between
_angular_ elevation (degrees, radians) and absolute elevation
(feet, meters).  If the objects were James Easton birds 2500
feet away, they would _not_ be 5000 feet below him.  That would
be a downward angle of over 60 degrees.  Arnold would be looking
at the tree-covered ground, not watching the objects fly across
the ice fields of Mt. Rainier.

No, instead they would be flying 100 feet below him at 9100 feet
so that they could appear to fly across the Rainier ice fields
and skim the Cascades.  In order for them to appear to disappear
behind some mountain peaks, there would have to be one taller
than 9100 feet between Arnold and the nearby birds.

As you can see, this is getting ridiculous.  There aren't any
tall mountains like that in Arnold's immediate vicinity.  If
there were, Arnold's most immediate concern would be to avoid
plowing into them.

Let's consider something further away.  The critical observation
here is the one where Arnold said he saw the objects silhouetted
and flashing against the backdrop of Rainier's ice and snow
fields.  The _edge_ of Rainier's permanent ice field drops to
about the 1500 meter or 5000 foot level.  If we assume there was
still some unmelted winter snow, then maybe the snowfields came
down to around the 4000 foot level, at which point one is maybe
still 20 miles from Arnold's position.  Any intervening
mountains have to be higher than this to obscure the view, and
the closer they are to Arnold, the taller they have to be
(because Arnold is flying above them and looking slightly down).

Looking at a topo map, the absolute closest mountain to Arnold
that I can find capable of doing this is called Mt. Wow, with an
elevation of 1800 m or 5900 feet.  It was about 15-17 miles from
Arnold's position (or about 9-10 miles from Rainier's peak).

This is the _closest_ possible mountain to Arnold's position
that could have obscured any part of the ice or snow field.  If
Arnold correctly perceived the objects being momentarily
obscured as they passed over the ice field, then this sets the
_lower limit_ as to how far away they could have been.

That, among many other things, certainly eliminates Easton's
"birds."  And at 15 miles or more, it practically eliminates any
jet plane of the day.  Using Arnold's _conservative_ calculation
of 1200 mph and scaling to the closer distance, the objects
would still have to be flying 700-800 mph, faster than any jet
of the day.  The speed record at the time, set only 5 days
before at Muroc AAF, California in a P-80, was 624 mph.  It also
established this speed record by flying at a much higher
elevation where the air was thinner.  Jets couldn't fly nearly
that fast down around 5000-9000 feet.

>The Pendleton newspaper article also states, "The Boise flyer
>said they flew on the west sides of Rainier and Adams, adding
>that he believed this would make it more difficult for them to
>be seen from the ground".

>Is this 'west side story' of any relevance in understanding the
>overall perspective?

Not that I can think of.  Both sides are very rugged and
sparsely populated, so I'm not sure what Arnold meant by the
remark.  Maybe somebody else more familiar with the area could
tell us more.  In any case, it seems to be a very minor point.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 21:29:44 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:48:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:47:44 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 04:19:27 +0100

>>Regarding:

>>>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
>>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Bruce wrote:

>>>>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>>Regarding Arnold's _first_ sighting... which has been the
>>>subject of my discussion.... there is no assumption that Arnold
>>>was "absolutely incapable of human error." Anyone who thinks
>>>there was such an assumption does not understand the nature of
>>.>the analysis. In fact, the arguments assume that Arnold could
>>>have been in error in some places.

>>Bruce,

>>Surely it's not debatable whether Kenneth Arnold "could" have
>>been in error in "some" places, that fact is acknowledged and
>>highlighted in your paper - 'The Complete Sighting Report of
>>Kenneth Arnold, with Comments and Analysis'.>

>>>But, let's get down to the crux of the matter: which Arnold
>>>statements would you like to reject or modify?>


<snip>

>>Arnold then decided to take this opportunity to 'clock' the
>>airspeed of the 'planes'.

>>It's perhaps crucial to appreciate that Arnold only decided to
>>carry out this exercise because, as he says in the radio
>>interview, "I just thought I'd see how fast they were going,
>>since among pilots we argue about speed so much".

>Crucial? Only? He thought they were jets.  Probably
>wondered just how fast the military aircraft could go

>>It wasn't a result of Arnold believing the airplanes were
>>travelling at an incredible speed. He only concluded that after
>>first carrying out a timing between two prominent landmarks and
>>then later calculating how far apart those landmarks were in
>>conjunction with the 'stop watch' reading.
>Wrong. He assumed from the first that they were jets.

>>As he timed the objects' - believed to be airplanes - what then
>>surprised him was a realisation that they didn't have any
>>'tails'.

>>However, as Arnold related, he didn't give either this or the
>>apparently fast airspeed too much thought at the time.>

>It didn't bother him too much while he was flying, even after he
>found a time of only 102 seconds from Rainier to adams \
>because, as he wrote to the AF, h knew that th army and air
>forces had fast aircraft.

>>Consequently, he worked out that the distance between the two
>>fixed points was some 50 miles and that if the objects had
>>travelled that distance, as he thought, in the 1 minute and
>>forty seconds recorded, they must have been travelling at an
>>unprecedented speed.
>This was after he landed.

>>If, as you explained in the detailed analysis, Arnold's estimate
>>of the objects' altitude was grossly mistaken and that when he
>>apparently turned his plane around during this timing exercise,
>>we don't know if he changed direction by 90, or 180 degrees, or
>>something else, then consequently, there can be surely be no
>>confidence in his overall perceptions.

>As described above his incorrect estmate of the altitude is
>understandable.   This has no bearing on the accuracy of his
>recall in turning the plane.   As for the turn itself, if he
>turned to the right he would open the left window near him and
>look ou while flying parallel t the objects.   Had he turned to
>the right he would have flown away from them.

>No point in turning 180 degrees or 360.

>Makes sense for him to turn t the right, whether unknowns or
>birds.   However, if brds he woudl have realized immediately
>that he was going faster

>>Obviously the closer these 'fluttering' objects actually were,
>>the faster they would appear to travel between two distant fixed
>>points.

>Yes, when flying a "crossing" pattern.   And, if Arnold
>initially saw them toward a direction north of Rainier, then by
>the time they got right in front of him (and below) they would
>have been closer.

>>When logic kicks in and we consider that the observation was
>>wholly subjective, has proven misconceptions and that Kenneth
>>Arnold reported a subsequent sighting with similar
>>characteristics and which was almost certainly of birds... at
>>what point does this remotely become sustainable evidence of
>>'alien spacecraft'?

>When logic kicks in and one attempts to formulate  a reasonable
>reconstruction based on Arnold (traveling 100 mph or faster at
>9,200 ft) and birds (traveling 50 m,ph or slower at 5,000 ft)
>one finds it just doesn't work.   Arnold would have gotten close
>enough to recognize birds by their shapes and by their lower
>speed and lower altitude.

>Sorry.... this pelican has its bellyful.


Bruce James and Dennis,

I'm not going to go over this point by point but just make a few
observations.

The first is an obvious disregard for one simple fact and that
is the stated Callair altitude that Arnold gave as 9,200 feet.
I've brought this up before with James who seems to want to
ignore it. The fact is Arnold did not know what his true
altitude was because he had no way of verifying it. He looked at
his altimiter and saw 9,200 feet and gave that as his altitude.
That could have been out as much as two or three thousand feet
[don't say it can't happen, it's happened to me] from the
station pressure at take-off in the warm lowlands to the cool
temps a couple of hundred miles away in the mountains. Note Well
that pilots are constantly updating their altimeter settings.

Every time you call a tower or a unicom or some other
uncontrolled airfield where someone is manning a radio and has
the instruments, they give the local pressure called "station
pressure" and the wind speed and direction before they say
anything else and you update your altimeter. Now Arnold was
without radio and in real wilderness in that area so had no way
to update his altimeter. James you can ignore this all you want
but it is a fact of life. The chances are that Arnold's
altimeter was reading high or low because he was a region of
cold heavy air and had come from a warm region where he had
originally set his altimeter to the field elevation.

Observation: If Arnold turned his aircraft to get a better look
he would have turned [banked] his plane to keep the objects on
his side [the left] for better visibility. In this case he would
have turned right about 90 degrees. However he probably would
have lost sight of the objects for the few seconds it took to
accomplish the manouver because his left wing [the Callair is a
low wing] would have come up, obscuring his vision.

I've also tried to impress on others the type of skill that
Arnold would  have had with some 3,000 hours of flying time and
the skills and knowledge required to fly in the mountains
without killing yourself. The winds around mountains can be
vicious and are always unpredictable. You don't just fly through
the area, fat dumb and happy and hope the airport shows up in
your windscreen after a certain amount of time has passed. The
only way you know that you are going to reach your destination
before you run out of fuel is by knowing your ground speed and
how many gallons your a/c burns per hour at cruise. You find out
the former by measuring the distance between two points on your
chart and clocking your time to cover that distance. Knowing
that will give you your ground speed. I'm not going to go into
the other steps such as figuring for the winds/drift and
maintaining an accurate heading, but mention this because I've
said before that I'll bet that Arnold knew right down to a mile
where he was at all times. For him not have known would have
been foolhardy at best and suicidal at worst.

I've been a bit put off by the impression being floated, by
some, that Arnold was some kind of dolt who was frittering
around the mountains with no particular idea of where he was,
didn't know birds from jets, couldn't estimate distances or work
out a speed/time problem, dispite the fact that he would have
done them dozens of times during each flight. The pilots back
then didn't have the luxury of Loran C or GPS and so had to rely
on their piloting and navigation skills.

For your edification it is a lot easier to clock a time over a
measured distance by using a stopwatch than it is by the panel
clock because you can be more precise, but a panel clock
[usually an 8 day windup clock with a sweep second hand] works
almost as well. It was his clock and he was used to it. You must
remember that Arnold relied on his sense of distance and
experience in flying to formulate his estimate of the situation
when he saw the UFOs. Don't blow that off so easily.3,000 hours
of flying at 100 MPH is 300,000 miles of distance flown. You can
pack in a lot of experience in that time frame.

I believe that it was Bruce that wondered if birds could fly at
6,000 or was it 9,000? feet. My Flight Supplement cautions
pilots to watch out for Canada Geese at 32,000 feet when they
are migrating. If I remember correctly a DC-3 struck a bird over
Mount Everest during WW II while flying the "hump" as they
called it.

I don't mean to be snotty but try to remember that Arnold was a
highly skilled pilot and not a fool. He had to be a careful and
skilled pilot to navigate the type of terrain that he did.

Another observation. We'll probably never know what Arnold saw
that day as is true of many other cases, but I think you are
drawing a long bow if you stick with your bird theory James.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                       Info About Mr. Haktan Akdogan?

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 23:56:08 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:52:30 -0400
Subject: Info About Mr. Haktan Akdogan?


Hello,

I need your help, please, someone knows something about the UFO
Researcher, Mr. Haktan Akdogan. Please contact me.

Thanks.

THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI
Diretor Do Departamento de Publica=E7=E3o e Tradu=E7=E3o Especializadas
( DEPTE - EBE-ET / Brasilia-Brasil)
Director of the Publication Department and Specialized Translation
ICQ - 35119615








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:10:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:21:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:01:40 -0400
>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


>In the 'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian, of 26 June, 1947, it's
>reported of Kenneth Arnold that, "He said he could estimate the
>distance of the objects better because an intervening peak once
>blocked his view of them. He found the peak was 25 miles away,
>he related".

>Perhaps we can still clarify further whether it could have
>"blocked his view", or, if it's more likely that he simply lost
>sight of the objects against this intermediate 'peak'.
>It's important if his perception that the objects 'vanished'
>behind a distant peak, was a main reason Arnold believed they
>were some 25 miles distant.>

Thanks for compiling all these statements about object height
relative to the moutains and the distance to the objects.

<snip>

>This seems to concur with Bruce Maccabee's assessment:

>"These statements about how they flew with respect to the
>mountain peaks are very important because they provide
>information on the distance from Mr. Arnold. These mountain
>peaks lie along a wide north-south line extending southward from
>Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams. These peaks were about 20 miles east
>of Arnold at the time. These statements also provide the
>altitude of the objects. To Arnold they appeared to be
>approximately at his altitude because they seemed to be "pretty
>much on the horizon to me." Since he was flying at 9,200 ft,
>this implies that they were close to that altitude. (Arnold
>actually stated his letter that they were at 9,500 ft.) However,
>the mountain peaks south of Rainier generally are 5,000 to 7,000
>ft high, with the higher ones being farther away (more to the
>east) from Arnold. Hence his statement that there were higher
>peaks on the far side of the pathway indicates that the objects
>were definitely lower than about 7,000 ft. Furthermore, he
>stated that they went behind some (or at least one) of the
>lower, closer peaks. Geological survey maps show that mountain
>peaks which the objects could have disappeared behind have
>altitudes of 5,000 to 6,000 ft. Hence it appears that they were
>lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold overestimated their
>altitude".


>In the early, detailed radio interview, Arnold states, "I could
>see them against the snow, of course, on Mt. Rainier and against
>the snow on Mt. Adams as they were flashing, and against a high
>ridge that happens to lay in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams".

>If the objects were seen against the snow of Mt. Rainier, Mt.
>Adams and a high ridge that was between the mountains, what
>'peaks' could they have gone behind?>

My guess is a few peaks just south of Rainier.

>In a related point, the 'Chicago Daily Tribune', of 25 June,
>quoted Arnold as saying, "I counted nine of them as they
>disappeared behind the peak of Mount Rainier".

I think this is wrong.

>Could the objects have gone behind the mountain, when they were
>also supposed to be travelling across its slopes, e.g., "low
>over the slopes of Mt. Rainier" and "not more than 500 feet over
>the plateau", according to statements attributed to Arnold in
>the 'Oregon Journal' of 27 June?>

>Aside from this earliest 'Chicago Daily Tribune' report, did
>Arnold ever claim the objects "disappeared behind the peak of
>Mount Rainier"?

No.

>Also in that radio interview, Arnold states, "due to the fact
>that I had Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Adams to clock them by, I
>just thought I'd see just how fast they were going".

>Did Arnold ever mention again that he used Mt. Saint Helens as a
>reference point, or was this probably an error and he meant Mt.
>Rainier?

Perhaps. Or, since he didn't know where they were going,. he
may have figured they would pass by Adams or St. Helens (farther
to the west) and he could use whichever was convenient as
reference point.

>In his letter to the Air Force, he claimed, "I watched these
>objects with great interest as I had never before observed
>airplanes flying so close to the mountain tops, flying directly
>south to southeast down the hog's back of a mountain range. I
>would estimate their elevation could have varied a thousand feet
>one way or the other up or down, but they were pretty much on
>the horizon to me which would indicate that they were near the
>same elevation as me. They flew like many times I have observed
>geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they
>were linked together. They seemed to hold a definite direction
>but rather swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks. I
>could quite accurately determine their pathway due to the fact
>that there were several high peaks a little this side of them as
>well as higher peaks on the other side of their pathway".>

>This is a much clearer explanation.

>There were mountain peaks between Arnold and the nine objects
>and further, higher, peaks beyond. The objects flew in-between
>this range of high peaks and ridges.

>However, it seems these features weren't nearly so high as
>Arnold thought and the objects were flying much lower than he
>perceived, something that Arnold never checked.

>In which case, is it agreed Arnold had no idea, not then, not
>ever, that he was observing from what seems to have been some
>4,000, maybe 5,000 feet above the objects?

Unless he looked up the altitudes of the mountains, how would he
know yes, he could have measured the altitudes with his
airplane, had he thought of it and dared to fly close to them).
As I pointed out in my analysis (not reproduced here), Arnold
said they appeared to be on his horizon...so he assumed they
were at his altitude. However, if they were 20 miles away, as
Arnold thought, they could have been 4000 ft lower and still be
"on his horizon", specifically, at a depression angle of only 2
degrees, so small it is lost in th "noise."

>If it's argued that this *couldn't* have directly affected his
>subsequent judgement of distances between himslef and the
>objects, plus where they were flying in relation to the peaks,
>what is the basis of that argument?

It is so argued... because of his statement that they were going
in and out of the mountain peaks. He wouldn' t have to know the
altitudes of th peaks in order to observe that some were in
front of and others behind the objects (2 degree depression
angle, remember?)

>The Pendleton newspaper article also states, "The Boise flyer
>said they flew on the west sides of Rainier and Adams, adding
>that he believed this would make it more difficult for them to
>be seen from the ground".

>Is this 'west side story' of any relevance in understanding the
>overall perspective?

More forest on the west side?

.............................................................

PELICANS
For Pelican Partisans Only:

Let's forget the claim of going in and out of the mountains for
the moment and simply concentrate on the directions to the
objects (a) when first seen, (b) when passing Mt. Rainier, (c)
when in the direction of Mt. Adams.

Assume Arnold was close to Mineral, Washington, about 25 miles
radially from Rainier; more specifically, 23 miles west and 10
miles south of Rainier.

OK, get yourself some graph paper with 1" squares (or larger)
and let 1" = a mile (or some other convenient square size on the
graph paper).

At the left side of the paper near the middle place a point.
That is Arnold's starting position. Let north be "up" on the
graph paper. Draw a line from Arnold's starting position at a
azimith of 15 degrees. This is approximately the direction to
Mt. Baker.

Draw another line with azimuth 23 degrees. This is the direction
to Mt. Rainier (about 25 miles away..... it will not appear on
your graph paper unless you have BIG paper or squares smaller
than 1"). Draw another line at azimuth 95 deg. This is Arnold's
track toward Yakima. Draw a final line at azimuth 136 deg. This
is the direction to Mt. Adams over 50 miles away. Now let's
construct a diagram of ARNOLD vs the PELICANS.

The bird explanation was discussed at length last fall (Nov. and
Dec) and then it dropped out of sight. Although I attempted a
reconstruction such as presented here way back then, I was
missing a key piece of data about PELICANS.... a piece which has
now been supplied by Mr. Easton (I believe he could have
supplied it last fall, but didn't). We knew back than that
Pelicans could achieve a top speed of 50 mph (more likely to be
20-30, however). What we know now is that the upper limit of
altitude as suggested by the ornithologists and glider pilots is
6,000 ft (more likely under 3,000). So let's characterize
Pelicans this way: wingspan - 10 ft length - 3 ft (? a bit
much?) TOP speed - 50 mph or 0.83 miles/min or 73 ft/sec TOP
altitude - 6,000 ft. Flight Direction: 170 azimuth (could be 180
or 160...won't make much difference to this disaster)

Let us charactersize Arnold by altitude - 9,200 ft speed - 100
mph or 1.67 mi/min or 147 ft/sec

Note that this estimate of Arnold's speed is probably low. We
also characterize this reconstruction by the overall time of the
observation. arnold said 2.5 - 3 minutes. Let's pick 2.5 (as
being advantageous to the P hypothesis) In that time birds fly
2.5 x .83 = 2.1 miles In that time Arnold flies 4.2 mi

Now go to your finely executed graph paper with the radial lines
emanating from Arnold's starting position and follow me. Mark 2
miles along the 15 deg azimuth radial. This is the assumed
initial distance of the pelicans. At this distance they would
appear as dots against the sky...or mountainous background
(Ignore observation by of arnold about metallic-like bright
flashes).

What do we find at the START of the sighting?

-angular size (birds seen nearly head on, flying south) , 2
miles horizontally, 3200 ft down, radial distance = 2.1 miles,
angular size = arctan (10 ft/2.1 miles) = 0.9 mr = 0.052 degrees
(mr = milliradians).... detectable -depression angle is
arctan([9200-6000]/2x5280} = 17 degrees (not exactly "on the
horizon"; 17 degrees down should be noticeable, whereas 2
degrees would be "lost in the noise." Therefore ignore arnold's
claim about the objects being on his horizon....)

Now draw a line from this initial bird position along the 170
azimuth direction. Make the line 2.1 miles long, the distance
the birds flew during the sighting and see where it ends.

Amusing.

On my diagram it ends right on Arnold's path. But by this time
Arnold would be 4.2 miles along his path, about 0.8 miles from
where he started, and the pelicans would be about 3 miles behind
him. This means that at all times they would have been to his
left and the sighting line to them would rotate to the left and
behind.

Please keep in mind that this is a DYNAMIC situation: Arnold and
the pelicans are moving. If one is clever one can find a point
of closest approach by marking off time intervals and measuring
the distance between th plane and birds at the various interval
positions. Try 15 second intervals.. At APPROXIMATELY 45 seconds
after the start.Arnold has already crossed the path of the
oncoming pelicans but they are still about 1.5 miles north of
his track. Arnold would be looking back to his left at about 25
degrees west of north or 120 to the left of his heading
direction. The depression angle at this time would be about 22
degrees, considerably below the horizon. The angular size would
be about 50% greater than the initial value ... probably wings
would be distinguished.

At any rate, one can hardly imagine Arnold describing this
situation as saying that the "saucers" flew down the hogback
chain of mountains toward Mt. Adams. So, to solve this problem,
ignore arnold's claim that the objects flew over the mountains
south of Rainier and ignore his claim that they were last seen
in the direction of Mt. Adams... Now you can accept the
Pelicans. Right?

If Arnold turned his plane under these circumstances it would
have been a turn to the left and he would have been flying
northward, opposite to their direction.

Now, as alternatives one could assume various initial distances
of the pelicans from Arnold's starting position, e.g., instead
of 2 miles along the 15 degree azimuth direction, try 1 mile, or
1/2 mile. go ahead. Try it. See what you get.

OR, try something more "realistic." Assume Arnold was wrong in
saying he first saw the objects north of Rainier. Ignore this
observation of arnold. Instead, assume he first saw them in the
direction of Rainier. So, mark off 2 miles along the 63 degree
azimuth.

Now mark 15 second intervals of 0.21 miles along the 170 degree
azimuth flight path southward of the pelicans. Also mark 15
second intervals of 0.42 miles along Arnold's path. You will
find, oddly enough, that the flight paths nearly cross in 5
intervals, i.e., 1 min, 15 seconds. Arnold has gone 2.1 miles
and the birds have gone 1.04 miles from their respective
starting points. At this time the pelicans are roughly 0.1 miles
= 528 ft north of Arnold and at an angle of about 105 deg to the
left of his heading. The radial distance is now (528^2 +
3,200^2)^0.5 = 3243 ft. The angular size of 10 ft wingspan is 3
milliradians... easy to resolve wings. The depression angle is
arctan (3200/528) = 81 degrees. Arnold is looking almost
straight down at the birds. After this the birds would b behind
Arnold, and below.

Ignore arnold's claim that the he saw the objects in the
direction of the chain of mountains south of Rainier AND ignore
his claim that he last saw them in the direction of Mt. Adams.
After proper ignoring, pelicans are definitely in the running.

One can, of course, play with the resconstruction a bit. If the
initial pelican distance is pushed farther away the pelicans
stay to north of Arnold's flight path during most or all of the
sighting. This decreases the depression angles somewhat, but
never do the pelicans appear to be south of Mt. Rainier

If the initial pelican distance is decreased, to say 1 mile,
then Arnold passes their flight track in about 30 seconds, about
15 seconds ahead of them. The depression angles are large all
the time.

Anyway, I invite Pelican Partisans to invent their own
reconstructions and prove that the objects could have been
pelicans. Please be specific as to which of Arnold's sighting
details we no longer need to accept as accurate in order to





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                           NIDS Roper Poll Results

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:11:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:11:37 -0400
Subject: NIDS Roper Poll Results




Source: http://www.sightings.com/ufo3/react.htm

Jeff Rense's Sightings Homepage


How Would Humans React If ET Landed? - NIDS Roper Poll

6-8-99


PRESS RELEASE
National Institute for Discovery Science
June 7, 1999

HOW WOULD HUMANS REACT IF E.T. LANDED?

NASA and the scientific community are actively searching for
evidence of extraterrestrial life, but what if we were
confronted with undeniable proof that ETs exist and have been
visiting Earth?

A nationwide survey by the Roper Organization has uncovered the
following:

...one out of four Americans think most people would "totally
freak out and panic" if such evidence were confirmed.

...eighty percent of influential Americans think the US
government would classify or suppress evidence of
extraterrestrial life.

The Roper survey was conducted on behalf of the National
Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), a privately funded
scientific research organization based in Las Vegas, NV. The
pollsters asked a nationwide sample of 1,971 men and women a
variety of questions concerning a sudden confirmation of
extraterrestrial life. (The poll has error margins of 2.5
percent.)

Among other findings:

When asked what they thought UFOs were:

25% thought they were alien spaceships 19% said UFOs are normal
events that are misinterpreted by witnesses, and 12% thought
they were secret government programs 9% said hallucinations 7%
said travelers from other dimensions.

When asked whom they would choose to make first contact with ETs
on Earth:

20% said the military 29% said scientists 14% said the
government 11% said religious leaders, and 20% said a private
organization that had planned for such a contingency.

"There have been no systematic studies about the potential
impact of confirmed contact", says Dr. Colm Kelleher, deputy
administrator of NIDS. A 1960 report by the Brookings Institute
and an internal RAND document from 1968 predicted profound
social consequences if contact were confirmed, but there have
been no follow-up studies.

For more information about the Roper survey and about NIDS, keep
reading, or visit the NIDS website at:
http://www.accessnv.com/nids

When asked how they would react psychologically to confirmation
of advanced extraterrestrial life:

32% said they were "fully prepared to handle it" 17% said they
would "rethink their place in the universe".

Yet when asked how they think OTHERS would react to the same
news:

25% said that "most people would totally freak out and panic"
10% said most others would "act irrationally and become
dangerous to others 14% said that others would "begin to act
very strangely" 36% said "most people would be very concerned",
and only 13% said "most people would handle the information in a
calm and rational way".

Since 1995, NIDS has been conducting scientific research into
unconventional and novel areas including aerial phenomena
research. NIDS's president and founder is Robert Bigelow. The
Las Vegas based organization employs a staff of Ph.D. level,
multi-disciplinary scientists and is advised by a world class
science advisory board.

Kelleher pointed to ongoing serious scientific studies on the
remote possibility of an asteroid striking the planet. "On the
other hand we have no government programs, no contingency plans
that are in the public domain for coping with the possibility of
E.T. contact. Yet these numbers from Roper say that 80% of the
trend-setters in America do not trust the government to inform
the public and one in four of the general public think there
would be total panic if confirmation of advanced
extraterrestrials occurred", said Kelleher.

The full text of the poll can be accessed on the NIDS website
at: http://www.accessnv.com/nids. Or contact Dr. Colm Kelleher
at NIDS at 702-798-1700 or nids@anv.net.

Jean Henry of the Roper Organization can be reached at:
914-698-0800







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:17:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:56:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:48:06 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


<snip>

>Logic such as this leads to throwing out everything which
>doesn;t agree with the proposed explanation.
>

No, logic such as this simply means that when you're dealing
with an anecdotal account the only fact you have is the anecdote
itself. Which anecdote may or may not be true in particular, or
may reflect varying degrees of subjectivity and misperception in
general.

The only evidence we have for Arnold's sighting is Arnold's
account of same.

Less than five weeks after his first sighting, he was reporting a second
encounter with an even larger flock (no pun intended) of flying saucers. A
few years later he claimed to have filmed two flying saucers over Mt.
Lassen, one of which was transparent. I'm not sure how many sightings he
claimed in all, but it would appear to be another three or four.

My point was that either he was extremely fortunate to have had so many
sightings -- or that one should tread with caution, which would include his
original sighting account. And I'm glad to see that you agree that you
weren't there, either. For a minute there, I thought you and Rudiak were in
the back seat.

I raised the point about the film because I ran across Arnold's _claim_ of
same while rereading some of his writings.

My questions re same were ones of simple curiousity. Has it ever surfaced?
Has anyone else ever seen or heard of it? In short, what happened to it?
Some confirmation of its existence would at least go a ways toward
establishing Arnold's overall credibility and reliability.

I thought Arnold advocates might be interested in nosing around for it, for
its historical value, if nothing else. If memory serves, Arnold has at
least one surviving daughter. Perhaps it's in her father's files. Perhaps
not, possibly pilfered by the MIB. (Remember that publicity photo of Arnold
posed beside his airplane, movie camera in hand?)

And please note that in discussing Arnold I haven't mentioned Maury Island
once.

<snip>

>Sure.  Get us the film.

>Bruce Maccabee

Not my job, I'm afraid. But I did bring it to your attention. If
you aren't interested, we can leave it at that. Or maybe Rudiak
will be moved to look for it.

After all, it's you two who are backing up Arnold's claims to
the hilt, not me. If I looked for it and didn't find it you'd
just complain that I hadn't looked hard enough. And we'd be
right back where we started. You saying that's Arnold's original
observation can be separated from his many other sightings and
claims, and me saying, maybe, but maybe not, too.

I'd still like to see that film when you find 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:20:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:50:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


Regarding:

>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 19:31:28 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

Dennis wrote:

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 99 11:49:54 PDT

>Actually you can find another case in the Arnold article already
>cited, pp. 27-8, of the Proceedings of the First International
>UFO Congress.It precedes Arnold's own remarks quoted here
>earlier, but snipped this time.

>I find it highly unlikely that Boeing would fly one of its test
>planes over Mexico, but that's what Arnold relates. I also find
>it highly unlikely that Boeing had a test (or any other) plane
>capable of 1500 mph and 67,000 feet altitude, but, again, that's
>the way Arnold has it. The last time I looked, Boeing was in the
>business of building big, slow passenger planes.

>Does anyone know if they ever did any high-speed design test
>planes for the military? I know they did the B-47 and the B-52,
>but after that they went commercial.

>Arnold doesn't give a date for the episode.


Dennis,

I asked Camille (see the last Voyager newsletter), our resident
Boeing expert about this and she replies:

"Give me a time window for the Boeing reference, so I know
roughly when I'm looking for.

Most people are not aware of how much military work Boeing was
involved with; production line gets publicized, custom work
doesn't, especially if it is classified. I suspect that the
reference to Mexico is one of two relentlessly usual mistakes;
either the location was New Mexico (You would not believe how
often this gets scrambled!) home of White Sands, Los Alamos etc
etc etc, OR it was over the Gulf of Mexico either by intent or
accident. Boeing had something that looks like Stealth on the
drawing boards prior to 1968 : that's certainly 'high speed test
design'.

During WWII & on into the Cold War, Boeing co-produced (that's
almost the right term) projects with the other major aircraft
companies, for the military. I believe this was the case with
much of the missile work during the Cold War. Some of the
missile R&D investigated how much wing you needed or could have
(I'm doing this from memory, not quoting the notebooks), which
could explain the '1500mph/67,000 ft' reference to an airplane
shaped object. How was the airspeed arrived at? Who recorded the
altitude, & with what?

Either probable location, New Mexico or over water, increases
the room for error in both those measurements or estimates".


Is there any information that can be added?

As an aside, is the "Proceedings of the First International UFO
Congress" available on-line, or could someone maybe e-mail a
copy of the Kenneth Arnold material to me?


Appreciating that Camille lived in Dallas, I mentioned that the
query came from your good self, a fellow 'Texan'.

She replied, "By the way, Dallas, where I live, is in Oregon,
not Texas".

The hell was I supposed to know that.

California, Arizona, Canada, Montana... too many States for us
Brits.


James.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:46:53 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:27:20 -0400
Subject: Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon


>From: stig.agermose@get2net.dk (Stig Agermose)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon
>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:56:39 GMT

>Source: Federal Computer Week,

>http://www.fcw.com:80/pubs/fcw/1999/0531/web-nsa-6-3-99.html

>Links are preceded by an asterisk.

>Stig

>***

>JUNE 3, 1999 . . . 18:34 EDT

>Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

>BY DANIEL VERTON (*dan_verton@fcw.com)

>**

>Congress has squared off with the National Security Agency over
>a top-secret U.S. global electronic surveillance program,
>requesting top intelligence officials to report on the legal
>standards used to prevent privacy abuses against U.S. citizens.

>According to an amendment to the fiscal 2000 Intelligence
>Authorization Act proposed last month by Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.),
>the director of Central Intelligence, the director of NSA and
>the attorney general must submit a report within 60 days of the
>bill becoming law that outlines the legal standards being
>employed to safeguard the privacy of American citizens against
>Project Echelon.

>Echelon is NSA's Cold War-vintage global spying system, which
>consists of a worldwide network of clandestine listening posts
>capable of intercepting electronic communications such as
>e-mail, telephone conversations, faxes, satellite transmissions,
>microwave links and fiber-optic communications traffic. However,
>the European Union last year raised concerns that the system may
>be regularly violating the privacy of law-abiding citizens
>[*FCW, Nov. 17, 1998].

>However, NSA, the supersecret spy agency known best for its
>worldwide eavesdropping capabilities, for the first time in the
>history of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
>refused to hand over documents on the Echelon program, claiming
>attorney/client privilege.

>Congress is "concerned about the privacy rights of American
>citizens and whether or not there are constitutional safeguards
>being circumvented by the manner in which the intelligence
>agencies are intercepting and/or receiving international
>communications...from foreign nations that would otherwise be
>prohibited by...the limitations on the collection of domestic
>intelligence," Barr said. "This very straightforward
>amendment...will help guarantee the privacy rights of American
>citizens [and] will protect the oversight responsibilities of
>the Congress which are now under assault" by the intelligence
>community.

>Calling NSA's argument of attorney/client privilege
>"unpersuasive and dubious," committee chairman Rep. Peter J.
>Goss (R-Fla.) said the ability of the intelligence community to
>deny access to documents on intelligence programs could
>"seriously hobble the legislative oversight process" provided
>for by the Constitution and would "result in the envelopment of
>the executive branch in a cloak of secrecy."

>Mail questions to *webmaster@fcw.com

>Copyright 1999 FCW Government Technology Group

Please remember that Echelon is a joint program shared by
countries other than the US. Just this evening a show titled
"Big Brother" was on the Discovery Channel. On that show a
former member of ESC (the Canadian equivalent of the NSA) claims
that the US trades domestic spying with other countries. In
other words, since domestic spying is illegal, he claims that
the US has other countries spy on our domestic targets as a
trade for us spying on other countries' citizens.

Due to the 13 Echelon Sattelites covering all sectors of the
globe, no electronic communications can evade monitoring. Who
knows what programs may have been developed to unscramble
encryption? Big Brother (and to be equal, Big Sister) may be hot
on your trail. From now on I'm only going to communicate through
whispers what I don't want THEM to know. Does this give you the
same feeling as seeing a police car in your rear mirror? Or a
gray by your bedside? Or a bird flying faster than your plane?

"Paranoia runs deep, into your heart it may creep"
Crosby, Stills, Nash and 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                  Re: UFO Report By Ex-RAF Radar Personnel

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:49:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:33:54 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Report By Ex-RAF Radar Personnel


>Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:22:32 +0100
>From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: UFO Report By Ex-RAF Radar Personnel

>Strange UFO Captured On RAF Radar In North Of Scotland

>Date: Winter 1964-1965.
>Location: RAF Saxa Vord, Shetland Isles, Scotland.
>Source: Retired RAF personnel. Name witheld at Witnesses Request.
>Report and Witness Interview by: Dave Ledger

>Before I proceed to report on this significant case, I would
>personally like to thank the witness involved, for showing his
>willingness and courage in coming forward after 35 years to
>discuss and log this extraordinary case report with UFO
>Scotland. His willingness to discuss the sighting and the
>relevant details associated, is to be commended and we hope that
>it may set an example for other ex-servicemen to follow.

>REPORT:

>During the Month of May 1999, I was lucky enough to have the
>opportunity of speaking with (for the record) an ex RAF member
>who was once based at the Early Warning Radar tracking station
>at RAF Saxa Vord in the extreme North of Scotland. This meeting
>had been set up by my father who is also ex RAF (retired) and
>had happened to meet my source via social circles who in turn,
>agreed to speak with me so that I may document the event.


<snip>

Hi,

Thats a very interesting case. Of course, as a radar only
sighting it lacks a certain dimension. But that was true of a
very similar incident - the West Freugh, Scotland, affair of
April l957. From what little we know of that radars detected a
similar object that changed course and flew vertically to a
height beyond any recorded by aircraft of the day. As a result a
civil defence alert resulted.

When I was making my BBC TV documentary on the MoD UFO files in
l996 I interviewed Ralph Noyes, the head of the MoD division
that studied UFOs in the l960's. He worked for the Air Minister
at the time of West Freugh and the two l956 radar cases
(Lajenheath/Bentwaters and the Isle of Wight incident). Although
both the latter feature string visual sightings and multiple
radar trackings (see accounts in my l998 book 'Something in the
Air') Noyes told me that the West Freugh (non visual) case was
the biggest of all so far as depth of concern in Whitehall. I
asked why. I never really understood the answer save that the
height and actions of the UFO were such that they eliminated any
prospect of a known aircraft and thus posed a real threat to the
UK. This may well explain why the l964 Shetland episode was such
a big deal.

When Ralph pointed me in the right direction I found records at
the PRO in Kew which referred to all three l957/8 radar cases
(with no names mentioned). This was interesting because the MoD
were furious at the fact that the West Freugh case became public
knowledge (as a result of the civil defence alert) and they
clearly went to considerable lengths to ensure future radar
incidents were kept mum.

So far as I know nothing has been traced on MoD records about
the Shetland case, even though by the 30 year rule it should now
be. My suspicion is that after the West Freugh debacle such
cases were put in the hands of a department other than what is
now Air Staff 2A and Noyes more or less agreed asd much;
although Nick Pope - curiously - continues to say his team got
all the UFO stuff. Sorry, Nick, I dont buy that. You didnt get
to see the gun camera film taken during RAF interceptor pursuits
of radar trackings. Ralph told me he did see these - but he had
a civil service rank of Air Commodore as opposed to Nick's rank
of Captain. This probably gave Ralph access to the other
department data but Nick was restricted to Air Staff 2A -
records that in my view exist as a scapegoat to deflect the
public away from the existence of the real hot stuff like this
Shetland case. ]

Where they are is a good question - DSTI, DI 55 - perhaps? But
there are many of them. Over my 25 years I have gathered data
from witnesses on about 10 other UK radar cases like the one
here reported - not one of which features in any Air Staff
released file. They are still happening. I lectured to RAF
Shawbury a few years ago and had a long talk to the radar
officer there. He mentioned two then recent radar intercepts
(one over Birmingham and the other Nottingham) - then withdrew
when he saw a senior officer approach. I would not be amazed if
these things were happening every other week and they are, of
course, being siphoned off far away from Air Staff 2A.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

              Re: Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much For

From: Kim Burrafato <lensman@stardrive.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 10:30:46 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:44:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much For


>Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:07:48 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much For Lazar?

>Hi everyone.

>The discovery of these two isotopes of elements 116 and 118 (see
>below) which have very short life spans strongly suggests that
>the predicted "island of stability" for elements higher than 114
>may not exist.  If these elements (and other isotopes of 116 and
>118) do have such short life spans as reported, then it would be
>very unlikely that Robert Lazar's element 115 is a stable
>element - one that has a life long enough for practical
>applications.

>Nick Balaskas


Nick,

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the island of stability thesis.  I
read that they expect to create element 119 fairly soon, and that it
will in turn decay into elements 117 and 115 respectively.  No one
knows what the decay time of those elemenst will be.  I'd say the
jury is still out as far as the possibility of creating superheavy,
stable elements.  Time will tell.


Kim Burrafato





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                                     Re:

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 99 09:30:39 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:37:37 -0400
Subject: Re:


>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Ufology: What have we really learned?
>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:58:06 PDT


Patient and gentle listfolk:

>"Yes sir," I said. "No, I will not be throwing any parties. For
>one thing, what have we -as a UFO community- accomplished in the
>last 50-years? In the last 20-years, I have watched ufology take
>a step backwards almost every year."

Ufology has many problems.  One of them is the sort of
simplistic, chest-beating polemic with which Jerry Black has
decided, yet again, to bless us.  Fortunately, for all its
faults ufology -- unlike, say, its critics --has a long,
honorable tradition of self-criticism. Unfortunately, the sort
we encounter here tells us more about Black than about the
field.  His characteristically personality-centered approach is
singularly unhelpful.

>"Our self-proclaimed 'leaders of ufology' have let the whole UFO
>community down. They seem more concerned with writing books, "I
>told the reporter," and staying in the public eye than they are
>with finding out the answers to the UFO phenomenon.

Let's have some specific names here, and even before that, this:
Exactly who have proclaimed themselves "leaders of ufology"?
Names and quotes, please.

In my experience, all kinds of people write books on UFOs, for
all kinds of motives.  Most, I have no doubt, are sincere and
well meaning, even if many of their books are not very good.
One can criticize the failings of these works without slandering
their authors, unless one believes, as apparently Black does,
that ufology's problems can be solved if we focus on the
personalities (or at least what we imagine to be the
personalities) of those with whom we disagree.

>"And these are the people who have been entrusted with keeping
>the people informed as to what's going on in the UFO community.

And some of them have done a damned good job of it, and
virtually none have received the recognition, appreciation, or
(for that matter) financial reward they deserve. Some -- such
as, to cite but one example, the heroic Jenny Randles -- are on
this very list.

>"Also," I said to the reporter, "people have been writing books
>about their UFO and abduction experiences, and most of these
>books have gone unchallenged. Nobody has made an objective,
>scientific attempt to analyze the people who have written these
>books, it basically seems 'up to the public' to decide whether
>or not these people are telling the truth.

Sadly, Black, who seems not to have read many of the "objective,
scientific attempts" to analyze UFO cases, believes that
"objective, scientific attempts" really should be devoted to the
analysis of personalities and motivations of UFO researchers.  A
bizarre reading of what ufology is about, and an invitation for
the field to collapse into navel-gazing irrelevance. Ufology, at
least to most of us, is not the study of ufologists.

>"In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the UFO community to
>critique these books when they come out, and let the general
>public know where they stand after they have performed a
>comprehensive and objective investigation.

"Objective" apparently is Black's favorite word, even if
objectivity as such is not much in evidence in his polemics --
unless, of course, he defines objectivity as whatever he chooses
to believe at any given moment.

In fact, UFO books are regularly reviewed in the UFO press and
pronouncements favorable, unfavorable, or in-between regularly
rendered.  What he says here is rank nonsense, though I can
think of a less polite term. But being a polite sort of guy, I
won't use it here.  I'll just let the rest of you think it.

>"None of these things are being done," I said to the gentleman.
>"So there is no reason for any celebration about the fiftieth
>anniversary of the modern-era of ufology."

Maybe if Black actually started _reading_ UFO literature....
Nah, he's too busy patting himself on the back and trashing
everybody else.

>I think it is a disgrace that the Whitley Strieber case has
>never been investigated. The responsibility for that lies on the
>two major groups, in my opinion. I believe that Mr. Walt Andrus
>and Mr. Jerome Clark are responsible to scientifically and
>objectively investigate any major case that makes network news -
>or to which a book has been written about. There haven't been
>that many cases which have appeared in the last 15 to 20-years
>to be concerned with, but there have been a few. These few have
>been allowed to 'run amuck' out there with these people making
>money without any serious challenge being made to them.

This has got to be a first: Walt Andrus and me being mentioned
in the same sentence.  I want to thank Black for giving me the
best chuckle I've had in a while.

Actually, I have neither time nor inclination to "investigate
any major case that makes network news."  I am practically never
asked by reporters (with whom I speak rarely, in any case) about
current cases.  On those infrequent occasions I am asked about
UFO matters by media types, it is almost always about historical
ufology, a subject on which, as author of The UFO Encyclopedia,
I think I can speak with some degree of authority (though not,
of course, infallibility).  Were I to be asked about those
exceedingly rare sightings that "make network news," I would
either decline comment or point to possible historical
precedents.

The last time I recall being asked about a current UFO claim was
by BBC, when the alien-autopsy film was getting its first
publicity.  I said I knew only a little about it but suspected a
hoax; I then turned the discussion to earlier UFO hoaxing.

>And while Jerome Clark and The Center for UFO Studies say that
>there are certainly problems with the Gulf Breeze and Whitley
>Strieber cases, what have they truly done to make a critical
>investigation of either case?

Actually, IUR ran a number of critical articles on the case in
the late 1980s and early 1990s and even published a 1990
monograph by Zan Overall.  CUFOS' investigator Bob Boyd was
among the first to look into the case, and the organization sold
and distributed his paper on the episode, Failure at Science
(1988).

>Realizing that MUFON was investigating Gulf Breeze, was it the
>friendship displayed by Budd Hopkins [who wrote the foreword to
>'Gulf Breeze'] or Bruce Maccabee [who has upheld Gulf Breeze so
>staunchly] that they don't want to get involved an make their
>own analysis? Each organisation, regardless of whose case it is,
>needs to take a scientific and objective look at each issue and
>write their own report.

Apparently, to the endlessly self-righteous Black, only
dishonorable motives -- ones, moreover, that he can freely
speculate about without ever having to document -- will do.
Honorable persons, in my observation, come down on both sides of
Gulf Breeze, and I know that CUFOS' skeptical stance was not
affected by the contrary judgments of others.  I disagree with
Hopkins and Maccabee about the significance of Ed Walters's
claims. At the same time I respect their views as those of
thoughtful, honorable men.  What grown-up believes that only
those who agree with us are decent human beings?

>In the case of Whitley Strieber, I don't recall ever reading
>where MUFON or CUFOS, ever asked to set up equipment in Mr.
>Strieber's home [which he may have denied anyhow]. I don't think
>anyone has ever asked, until myself, that Strieber take a
>properly-sponsored third-party polygraph test. If MUFON or CUFOS
>have asked to stay in Mr. Strieber's home for over a week with
>this equipment, then I stand corrected. I do know, for a fact,
>that they never asked him or his wife Anne, to take a polygraph
>test.

So?  CUFOS has never conducted an investigation of Strieber's
claims.  Nor has it promoted them.  We are a volunteer
organization with distinctly limited resources.  It seems to us,
and I suspect to most reasonable persons, that ufology would be
better advised to employ what resources it has to investigate
those cases that are likely to produce useful results (CE2s,
most prominently).  By any standard Strieber's claims are
minimally evidential at best.

On the other hand, IUR and JUFOS, the two CUFOS publications
(which as far as I know Black doesn't read), have carried some
of the best, and most original, work on the abduction phenomenon
in general, including pioneering studies of patterns in
abduction data, psychological profiles of abductees, the
relationship of earlier folk traditions to current abduction
experiences, abduction-monitoring experiments, and physical
evidence (see, for example, Bill Chalker's important article in
the current IUR).

Where disciplined, scientific work on the abduction phenomenon
is concerned, CUFOS not only has nothing to apologize for but
has been at the forefront.


>Whitley Strieber, and now Mr. J. Reed, who alleges to have
>killed an alien and had it taken from his home, both of these
>gentlemen have taken self-sponsored polygraph tests. And why
>have they done so? Because CUFOS, by not making a comprehensive
>report, and by MUFON, courtesy of Walt Andrus' ridiculous
>investigation practices, have allowed Ed Walters' self-sponsored
>polygraph tests to stand. So consequently, Mr. Whitley Strieber
>felt -as I'm sure Mr. Reed did also- "if they approved of his,
>why can't we take ours?"


>I also think that the self-proclaimed leaders in ufology during
>the past 10 or 15-years have let the UFO community and general
>public down.

>Finally, in the last 10 or 15-years, we have had the crossovers.
>Those are investigators in other fields which may or may not be
>proven later to be related to the UFO phenomenon. One such
>crossover is Mr. Richard Hoagland. Another crossover is Mr.
>Colin Andres, and another crossover is Linda Moulton Howe. If we
>go back much farther than that, even Mr. Bruce Maccabee is a
>crossover, in which he was formerly a photographic expert to now
>feeling he has the expertise [which he has certainly shown no
>ability for] to be a UFO investigator.

Note the childish insult, repeatedly demonstrated in his recent
postings, in which Black cannot help indulging himself.  He
continually refers to Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D. (American
University, 1970), as "Mr." , as if the latter's doctoral degree
came out of a diploma mill rather than from one of our country's
most respected universities. Moreover, Dr. Maccabee has been a
working physicist all of his professional life.  It doesn't
follow, of course, that therefore he's never wrong about
anything (_nobody_ is never wrong about anything), but it does
tell us that Dr. Maccabee has educational and professional
credentials that even his critics are obliged to respect.  One
gets the impression here, as elsewhere, that Black seeks to
infantalize ufological discourse.

>Getting back to the three recent crossovers, they have crossed
>over from other fields and became professional UFO
>investigators. Mr. Richard Hoagland, who dealt with the Face on
>Mars, has made many predictions that have not come true. Mr.
>Whitley Strieber, who will brown-nose with anyone in ufology if
>he figures it will benefit him, has claimed that he likes a
>person like Richard Hoagland because he "lives on the edge." No,
>Mr. Strieber, he's not living on the edge. What he is hoping for
>is that one of his predictions will come true so that he could
>live off of it for years like Jeanne Dixon did with her Kennedy
>prediction. Yet none of Hoagland's predictions that he has made
>in the field of ufology have come true.

This is the first time I have ever Hoagland referred to as a
ufologist.  The fact that Black has to pretend that he is one in
order to make his point tells us volumes.  Likewise, occultist/
fantasy-writer Andy Collins (of whom I doubt that any but a tiny
number of non-Brit list members have heard) below:

>Andrew Collins, a few years ago, was going to surprise everyone
>with this remarkable new evidence about UFOs. He held a
>conference in which people were to pay $30 per head at a meeting
>room at Madison Square Gardens in New York City, and when 30 to
>50 people attended, there was no 'new evidence' to be had.

I am astonished.  "There was no `new evidence' to be had."  I am
shocked.  Shocked.  This has got to be one of the hugest
scandals I've ever heard of in all my years as a ufologist.

>Linda Moulton Howe, who is now on the Art Bell show on a regular
>basis [along with Whitley Strieber], while she is a nice lady
>that I have had the opportunity to speak with once, can be very
>gullible at times.

Wow.  Linda Howe "gullible at times"?  Who would have imagined?
One can only, alas, envy Jerry Black's keep grasp of the
obvious.

Jerry Clark





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                  Re: Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting?

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 20:30:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:51:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting?

>From: Steven J. Dunn <SDunn@LOGICON.COM>
>Subject: Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting?

>A couple years ago, I saw a television interview with Leroy
>Gordon Cooper where he claimed to have seen a UFO land on a
>runway at Edwards AFB. After a fruitless session of looking on
>the web, I now ask: does anyone out here in mailinglistland
>have any further information on this sighting?

See Website-   http://www.edwardsufo.com

A UFO Alert took place at Edwards Air Force Base in California
on  October 7, 1965. 12 Luminous UFOs came low over the runway
of this secure test facility and F-106 Interceptors were
scrambled after the objects. All of this action was captured on
Classified U.S. Air Force Audio Tapes which have now been
declassified and are available to the public along with official
documentation. As featured on: Art Bell, Sightings (2 episodes)
and The Geraldo Rivera Show...............


Georgina Bruni - Editor in Chief Hot Gossip UK
Check out Bruni's Column at www.ufocity.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
E-mail: georgina@easynet.co.uk
E-mail: 104707.336@compuserve.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HOT GOSSIP UK
www.hotgossip.co.uk
Celebrating three years on the World Wide Web
Britain's first on-line Gossip Magazine
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:31:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:40:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:42:48 -0500
>Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:07:27 -0400
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>Arnold claims to have filmed two UFOs over Mt. Lassen in 1952,
>one of which was transparent, an experience which led him to
>believe that flying saucers were living creatures capable of
>changing their density at will.

So? I guess this is leading to the usual Stacian argument that
Arnold was a screwball and/or liar, and probably a rapist and
drunkard as well.

Let's assume for the moment that Arnold flipped his wig and
started claiming to see all sorts of weird things flying around
some time after his first report of June 24, 1947?  What's that
got to do with the specifics of his first sighting?

What has remained impressive about this sighting for the past
half century is how detailed and methodical Arnold was in his
observations.  Using what he had on hand he systematically
attempted to gauge object speed, size, distance, shape,
separation, and elevation.  He was flying in a plane on a
parallel course, which puts a lower limit on the possible speed.
He timed their flight between two prominent landmarks from an
excellent vantage point. In fact, I've been racking my brain to
recall any other comparable case where somebody did a timed
measure of speed.  All other measures of UFO speed that I can
think of have come from radar or eyeball estimates.

If one assumes the witness was honestly reporting something he
saw to the best of his ability, then the report is rich in
details that enable one to analyze various hypotheses ("birds"!)
quite independently of what the witness may have thought.

Arnold was clearly upset afterwards by press ridicule, something
that continues into the present in the form of calling him a
"fruitcake" in public forums -- eh Dennis?  Certainly at the
time, people who spoke to him where impressed with his sincerity
and level-headedness.  But _maybe_ hurt and also primed to the
reality of something strange flying around after his first
sighting, it's conceivable later Arnold blew up sightings of
lesser things in his mind.  Since there are almost no details on
his future sightings (unlike his first), there is really little
to be said or concluded about them. Maybe he wanted personal
vindication after his perceived bad treatment in the public
media following the first sighting.

I don't know that this happened.  It's a possibility.  But
certainly the first sighting was uncontaminated by preconceived
notions.  That comes through in the methodical and detailed
nature of Arnold's observations, in which he was testing various
conventional hypotheses in his mind as the sighting occurred.
The flashed brightly in the sun.  Their shape was unusual.  They
flew in a screwy, co-ordinated formation.  He knew they were
flying fast, but he didn't know how fast.  Maybe they were a new
type of military jet plane.  He timed their flight, and was
later astounded when he calculated their speed as well into the
supersonic.  Nothing he knew of flew that fast.  So he started
talking to fellow people in aviation about what they might be.
Word got around.  The press got involved.  And then it blew up
and Arnold was at the center of a storm of controversy.

I don't see someone here seeking fame or fortune or attention,
but just an ordinary, honest guy  who was very curious and also
a very good observer of detail.  He just wanted an explanation
for what he had seen.  What happened afterwards was totally
unexpected to him.  And I rather doubt that he changed that much
afterwards to warrant your rather nauseating description of
"fruitcake."

>Wouldn't you agree that this film would be much more compelling
>evidence than a spoken or written account of having seen something?

Since I havene't seen this film (and neither have you), why
would it necessarily be compelling evidence?  There are all
sorts of UFO film and photos which are dismissed out-of-hand as
hoaxes.  Oh, Arnold the "fruitcake" hoaxed a film to vindicate
himself!  Or maybe the images are of poor quality and lack
points of reference.  You can't tell much from that.   In that
case, spoken and written accounts might contain better quality
information.

>Have you ever seen a still from this film published anywhere in
>the vast UFO literature?

Can't say that I have.  So?  What if all Arnold got on film was
nondescript dots?  What if the film was over- or underexposed
and all detail was wiped out?  There wouldn't be much to
publish, would there?  Since I haven't seen the film (and
neither have you), how can we make any judgments about it?

>Arnold had a working relationship with
>Ray Palmer, editor of Fate magazine, who I'm sure would have
>been only too happy to publish a picture of the real thing.

Would he have published a dot?  A smudge?  A washed-out,
overexposed image?

I took two pictures last Fall of a bright red object which
seemed to be following my jetliner for some 40 minutes.  It was
probably just another jet on a parallel course and brightly
reflecting the setting sun, but who knows?

Well, how did my sensational "evidence" come out?  All I got
were two faint red dots barely visible through the clouds and
smeared around by camera motion.  Do you think Ray Palmer would
have published that, even if it had been of the "real thing"
and I had been the famous Kenneth Arnold?

>In that same vast literature, have you ever run across a single
>account by anyone else who ever claimed to have seen Arnold's film?

No.  Can' say that I have.  So?  Without knowing _anything_
about what was supposed to be on the film, you seem to jump to
an awful lot of conclusions.  Maybe the film never publicly
materialized because the images were of such poor quality they
were worthless as evidence.

>For the record, I included Arnold's own account of his Mt.
>Rainier sighting as "What Happened on June 24, 1947," in UFOs
>1947-1997: Fifty Years of Flying Saucers, co-edited with Hilary
>Evans. I have copies of the illustrated, 272-page hardback
>available for $19.95, plus $3.00 s/h.

Shameless plug slipped in nicely.  Never hurts to exploit the
"fruitcakes" for a little gelt, eh Dennis?

>Aside from Arnold, the book contains articles by Jenny Randles,
>Jerome Clark, Jacques Vallee, Bill Chalker, Ray Fowler, Chris
>Rutkowski, Robert Durant, David Perkins, Col. Hector
>Quintanilla, Michael Swords, Karl Pflock, James Moseley, Jan
>Aldrich, Vicente-Juan Ballester Omos and others.

I can see that some of us aren't on your social list.  Sniffle.

>In September of this year I'll be hosting the 36th annual
>National UFO Conference here in San Antonio. Speakers include
>Whitley Strieber, Kevin Randle, Joe Firmage, psychotherapist
>Constance Clear (author of "Reaching for Reality"), Jim Moseley,
>Tom Deuley,  Walt Andrus, and Linda Corley, who conducted the
>last in-depth interview with Jesse Marcel, Sr.

>Details to follow soon.

Actually sounds interesting.  Keep us posted.

Anybody know anything about LInda Corley's interview with
Marcel?  Haven't heard of it before.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                  Re: Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting?

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:43:02 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:49:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting?


>From: Steven J. Dunn <SDunn@LOGICON.COM>
>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:33:13 -0700
>Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:58:33 -0400
>Subject: Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB Sighting?

>A couple years ago, I saw a television interview with Leroy
>Gordon Cooper where he claimed to have seen a UFO land on a
>runway at Edwards AFB.

>After a fruitless session of looking on the web, I now ask:
>does anyone out here in mailinglistland have any further
>information on this sighting?

The date was May 3, 1957.  The landing wasn't on a runway but
out on a dry lake bed on the Edward's range.  Cooper said he saw
the film immediately afterwards that had been shot by two range
photographers, but hadn't personally witnessed the incident.
The L.A. Times and a few other newspapers the next day reported
that something had happened, but an A.F. spokesperson downplayed
the incident as being a mirage.  ("The desert air does crazy
things.")

The most complete account I've seen was by Dr. James McDonald in
his Congressional testimony of July 29, 1968.  He tracked down
the two range photographers, and also the range director, and
interviewed them.  He also apparently spoke to Cooper, but
maintained his anonymity.

McDonald wrote that the range photographers, James Bittick and
John Gettys, said they first saw the object maybe 500 yards off,
but the first photos were taken when it was about a mile off.
"Both said it had a golden color, looked somewhat like an
inverted plate with a dome on top, and had square holes or
panels around the dome.  Gettys thought that the holes were
circular not square.  It was moving away from them, seemed to
glow with its own luminosity, and had a hazy, indistinct halo
about its rim, both mentioned.  The number of shots is
uncertain;  Gettys thought perhaps 30.  The object was lost from
sight by the time it moved out to about five miles or so, and
they did not see it again.  They drove to the base and processed
the film immediately.  All three of the men I interviewed
emphasized that the shots tkaen at the closer range were very
sharp, except for the hazy rim.  They said the dome and the
markings or openings showed in the photos.   The photos were
taken by the Base military authorities and were never seen again
by the men.  In a session later than day, Bittick and Carson
[the range director] were informed that they had seen a weather
balloon distorted by the desert atmospheric effects, an
interpretation that neither of them accepted since, as they
stated to me, they saw weather balloons being released
frequently there and knew what balloons looked like.  Accounts
got into local newspapers, as well as on wire services."

McDonald then notes that, "I have not seen the photos alleged to
have been taken in this incident, I have only interviewed the
two who say they took them and a third person [obviously Gordon
Cooper] who states that he inspected the prints in compnay with
the two Askania operators and darkroom personnel."

Obviously something happened.  Gettys and  Bittick also
completely corroborated Gordon Cooper's account of what he saw
on the developed film when Cooper finally went public about the
incident.

A year ago I visited Edward's AFB and looked up the base
historian, who talked a lot about his PhD and thought very
highly of himself as a military historian.  He was a typical UFO
skeptic, very opinionated but short on specifics.  If there was
anything at all to this UFO nonsense he, as a high and mighty AF
historian, would certainly have heard about it by now.  He was
cleared right to the top, so he claimed, and could bust generals
right down to privates if they didn't share information with
him.  (He really did say this stuff.)

He knew vaguely about Cooper's claims, but kept insinuating that
Cooper must be mentally unbalanced.  He obviously knew nothing
about the incident being reported in the papers or the
corroboration of Cooper's account by the range photographers and
the range director.  No, Cooper was nuts and it never happened.

Another famous Edward's UFO incident this self-opinionated base
PhD historian knew absolutely nothing about was the
multi-sighting, multi-witness incidents of July 4, 1947 at then
Muroc AAF.  He didn't believe me, so I told him he could look up
the AF case reports that are reproduced on Jan Aldrich's Project
1947 Web page.

I then asked him if he would bring out the base logs,
newspapers, and anything else for these dates, that might note
anything happening.  Well, I was wasting my time, he said.
There's nothing there.  As it turned out, he was right.  The
otherwise very detailed base logs had nothing on either of these
incidents, or on another well-known Edward's radar visual
incident of Oct. 7, 1965, from which there is several hours of
audiotape, including of the jet interceptor scramble, radar
photos, and the report from the base "UFO officer", which he
said he had personally uncovered and turned over to one of those
"UFO buffs."  (These are now publicly available)  As an aside,
astronaut Edgar Mitchell has recently stated that he was at the
base at the time this happened.

Well, what about that incident, I asked?  What were those
objects?  He muttered something vague about how he might have an
answer after talking to some of the people, but he wasn't going
to share it with me.

Anyway, I bring this up to counter claims by skeptics that if
some UFO incident really happened at a military base, then such
items as the base logs would definitely have something on it.
That's simply not the case.  These were three very
well-documented incidents at Edwards, and there is nothing
there.  The only thing on UFO incidents that I found anywhere
was speculation in the base newspaper about what might have been
filmed by an X-15 camera during an a flight on April 25 (?),
1962 -- ice crystals or paint flakes perhaps?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                     Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:28:57 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:03:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99


>From: Richard G Brown <rgbrown@web.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99
>Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:46:00 -0700

>>From: Rense E-News <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
>>To: Rense E-News  <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
>>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:40:01 -0600
>>Subject: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99

>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
>>----------------------------------------------------------------

><snip>

>>EBE-2 explained the weather of it's planet which was dry,
>>varying temperature between 65-90 degrees.  There was 35
>>hours of constant sunshine and three hours of darkness

>I know I'm going to regret this... But how can a planet have
>such vastly unequal periods of day and night? 35 hours to 3?!?
>Shouldn't they be relatively equal?

>Even in a binary system it couldn't be consistant enough to be
>35 and 3 every day could it?

>- Confused in Canada

Hi Richard.

Many Canadians who live in the northern latitudes will tell you
that their days and nights are not always of equal length.  In
fact, if you live north of the Arctic Circle, the days there are
now 24 hours long since the sun doesn't set and about 6 months
from now the nights will be 24 hours long since the sun won't
rise.

Even if EBE-2 had large space mirrors in orbit around its home
planet like the ones proposed by the Russians to light up the
night sky or if its planet had a large moon which blocked out
the light from its sun for 3 hours at a time, this would still
not explain how EBE-2's planet has a 35 hour day and 3 hour
night.

As for the range of temperatures in EBE-2's home planet, no
world in our solar system, including the Earth, has such a small
range. Assuming EBE-2 is for real and what it said was
accurately reported and true, then maybe EBE-2 comes from an
artificial planet controlled with a typical house thermostat.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                        Forgione's Balducci Interview

From: Adriano Forgione <aforgi@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 23:04:16 CEST
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:13:15 -0400
Subject: Forgione's Balducci Interview

Here is my interwiew with Monsignor Corrado Balducci, the
Vatican priest speaking about UFOs.

If someone wants to use my interview with Monsignor Balducci
please contact me first


Adriano Forgione
aforgi@hotmail.com

------

Interview with Monsignor Corrado Balducci

"Other intelligent beings exist"

The reality of the UFO phenomenon and its theological
implications: using reason, extraterrestrials are here. A
glimpse of their nature and a mention of the Third Secret of
Fatima.

by Adriano Forgione
(tranlation from italian by Dawn A. Bissel)

I met Monsignor Corrado Balducci at the Second Ufological
Conference of Ancona, entitled "Alien civilizations: between
doubt and reason" on 17 April 1999. Balducci, a demonologist of
the Vatican is a very open person with a pleasant manner who is
quite well known in the ufological circuit for having openly
declared that he believes in the possibility that
extraterrestrial intelligences are interacting with Earth. Are
his statements made on behalf of the Vatican? I tried to examine
the religious repercussions of contact with Monsignor Balducci.

Monsignor, where does your interest in extraterrestrial
intelligences spring from? I really became interested in ufology
a couple of years ago, even though I started talking about it on
TV about four years ago, in 1995. Actually, it all started in
1959 when I began to devote my time to studying demonology. As I
had to explore fields such as psychiatry and parapsychology, I
indirectly came into contact with topics linked to ufology. I
remember that in the Fifties, there was a tendence to deny at
all costs the object of parapsychological studies amongst the
public, some scientists and also amongst us clergymen. They said
that there was no basis for acknowledging parapsychology and
phenomena which were called nonsense and fantasy. To put it
simply, they denied everything. This was reflected in ufology,
which is linked to other frontier topics. As I collected
material, I realized that this generalized denial stemmed from
illogical fanaticism. There must be something there, even if you
just use your common sense, and, using reason, the phenomenon is
undeniable. Strict criticism goes against common sense because
it goes against the value of human testimonies. In recent years,
accounts of ufological events have greatly increased and yet
there are still too many people who tend to pass everything off
as nonsense. Of course, in many cases, natural phenomena for
example, may be wrongly interpreted, but it's absolutely
unthinkable to put eveything into that category. Total
scepticism is compeletly unjustified.

And what's happening at the moment in your field? I've never
told anyone this, but I'll tell you: some theologists have said
to me "Balducci, what are you doing, it's all just fantasy! ",
and they were important theologists, not just anyone. Then when
I explained my interest, I defended it tooth and nail so as to
say that it's time to change this attitude because if we go on
like this, we'll end up weakening and destroying the value of
human testimonies. This is what worries me because human
testimonies are the basis for our life as an individual, our
life in society but above all the basis for the spiritual life
of Christians, given that the Divine Revelation is a historical
fact that was testified to. God's Revelation is testified to by
people and by the gospels. If we believe in the accounts of
Biblical miracles, then using reason, we must also believe the
accounts of extraordinary events that happen today. It's obvious
that we must prove that every affirmation is based on credible
foundations. Above all, I decided to get involved in ufology in
order to defend human testimonies.

On various occasions you have said that the occupants of UFOs
could be more highly evolved spiritually than we are. I must
start by saying that angels do not use spaceships. As purely
spiritual beings, they are where they want to be and if they
wanted to show themselves, they wouldn't have any trouble taking
on  visible forms. So, when we talk about extraterrestrials, we
have to think either of beings like us or, preferably, other
types of beings who always combine a spiritual part with a
material part, a body, even though they have a different
relationship compared with us terrestrial humans.

Nowadays, science accepts the existence of forms of life in the
cosmos, even though it doesn't want to take into account the
fact that these intelligences could already be here in our
planetary sphere, at least in an obvious form. How does theology
tackle this problem? Opinions in favour of the habitability of
other worlds are held not only by secular scientists, but also
theologists and people who died and were made saints like Padre
Pio. The book written in 1974 by the priest Don Nello Castello,
"Cos=EC parl=F2 Padre Pio" ("Thus Spoke Padre Pio"), says that
someone in Padre Pio's confraternity asked him "Father, I
thought Earth was nothing compared to the stars and all the
other planets", to which Padre Pio replied "Yes, and if we leave
the Earth we are nothing. The Lord certainly didn't restrict his
glory to this little planet. On other planets, there will be
beings without sin.". I can also mention Cardinal Niccol=F2 Cusano
(1401-1464) who wrote "there is no star from which we are
authorized  to exlude the existence of beings, who may even be
different to us". The Jesuit and astronomer, Father Angelo
Secchi (1818-1866) wrote "It's absurd to consider the worlds
that surround us as uninhabited deserts". And I could go on and
on. Of course, we still don't have scientific confirmation of
this particular issue. However, in the field of theology and the
Scriptures we can make some observations. As God's power is
limitless, it is not only possible but also likely that
inhabited planets exist. In fact, there is a great difference
between angels, who are purely spiritual beings, and ourselves,
who are made of spirit and matter and whose soul is limited in
its actions by the abilities of the body itself. This is
explained by the axiom that Nature doesn't take jumps. And so
it's likely that the distance between us and angels is reduced
by beings who, although they have a body, maybe a more perfect
one, have a soul which is less conditioned in its evolution.
Probably, not only is this possible and likely but, in my
opinion, also desirable. In a not so distant future, these
beings could help us, especially on our spiritual path.

Some researchers think that this already happened in the past.
That's an interesting point. It's arguable that these beings
have been protecting and helping us for a long time. Some people
have put forward the hypothesis that some disasters have been
avoided thanks to them. If intelligent beings from other planets
really existed, we would find the solution as to how to
reconcile their existence with Christ's redemption. If Christ is
the centre and head of all creation, no world exists which
doesn't refer to Christ, as everything is under the influence of
the divine Word and His glory. And no glory is possible without
the existence of intelligent beings who can understand it. In
any case, it's absurd to think that the only form of
intelligence is our own. Other intellectual forces, different to
the human one and constructed with a different type of structure
is not only possible, but extremely probable.

Is your research personal or is it on behalf of the Vatican?
It's personal.

Twenty years ago, Father Domenico Grasso spoke publicly in
favour of the UFO phenomenon. Was it personal research for him
too? This research is absolutely personal. The Vatican doesn't
decide anything. We aren't told "study this or study that" but
it gives great freedom of action to individuals. In the Vatican
will be pleased when it knows that Balducci too has spoken about
ufology. We don't work according to specific orders, absolutely
not.

In your opinion, what are the possible implications of the
phenomenon for our current civilization or for the near future,
if we acknowledge a possible interaction between man and
extraterrestrial intelligences? That's a question which leads me
to think that it would be better if we knew what these beings
are like. I have already gone into this and I justified my
opinion with "likely". What you want to know depends on whether
they are inferior or superior to us. If they are like us, there
wouldn't be many implications, as they could have a civilization
on the same level as our own. It would be different if they were
superior beings. In that case a lot of presuppositions could
change.

According to some studies, visions of Blessed Virgin Mary are
connected to the UFO phenomenon. Some associated phenomena seem
to be of a ufological nature. What do you think? It's absolutely
out of the question. For pity's sake, Our Lady can do what she
wants, and definitely doesn't need a UFO.

Two years ago, an article was published in 'Il Messagero' which
quoted some of your statements about a nuclear war and a
celestial cataclysm which will happen within ten years. That was
a sensationalist article. The truth is, I said that they are two
risks we are running. The nearest is a nuclear world war, a
danger that's more real when there are two powers involved. So,
I speculated on who could be a possible opponent for America,
and I said China or the Arab world, but I didn't mean that this
would happen tomorrow. I pointed out that for near future I
meant around 2030. China first has to develop its commerce and
industry to the point where it has enough military power to
involve the West in a future war. (At the time of the interview,
the war in Kosovo was already under way - Ed). The danger could
also be that Russia, being in a destitute state, has already
sold arms, technology and people to Third World countries. But I
think that however small a country is, it thinks before dropping
an atomic bomb on the USA. And what do you think the other, more
distant danger is?

An asteroid hitting Earth. I hadn't thought of that. I was
actually referring to an ecological crisis which is growing
because of the increase in pollution which is faster than any
human corrective measure. But of course I'm not talking about
only surviving ten years.

Staying with this issue, in an edition of the magazine 'Visto'
three years ago, you partly confermed the text of the Third
Secret of Fatima which has been around for thirty years but has
never been backed by the Church. Yes. There are two things in
the Third Secret of Fatima. Everyone noticed the first, but very
few noticed the second. The first tells of a nuclear war before
the end of the millenium. From the context, that's clear. In
fact, the text talks about the use of arms that are more
powerful than a thousand suns. It's clear what arms are intended
if we look at what the text goes on to say: "the living will
envy the dead". This means that the people who survive the
nuclear weapons will suffer from radiation. The other, less
known aspect, is the doctrinal crisis of the Church. Three years
ago, I was interviewed by Canadian TV. I said: "Yes, the Madonna
of the Third Secret of Fatima says this, but no-one has noticed
that she first says that it will happen if mankind doesn't mend
its ways.". So its all conditioned by this previous remark. But
I am optimistic. We, as people, can influence the realization of
a prophecy, change the date and the intensity of the prophesied
events and mitigate them. The renewal of spirituality in the
young is a good omen. I mean to say, spirituality based on the
rules of the Church.

Do you believe that non-terrestrial intelligences could
intervene in a possible future cataclysm? I've already said that
it's possible for these beings to come to the aid of mankind.
Anyway, we shouldn't expect help from anyone, it has to be us
who change and mature.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                     Re: Info About Mr. Haktan Akdogan?

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 22:00:17 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:13:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Info About Mr. Haktan Akdogan?


>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>To: updates@globalserve.net <updates@globalserve.net>
>Date: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 9:14 PM
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Info About Mr. Haktan Akdogan?

>From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Info About Mr. Haktan Akdogan?
>Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 23:56:08 -0300

>Hello,

>I need your help, please, someone knows something about the UFO
>Researcher, Mr. Haktan Akdogan. Please contact me.

>Thanks.

>THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI

He is a Turkish UFO researcher who speaks excellent English and
has done a number of radio and TV programs in Istanbul. He was
the primary organizer of the huge Istanbul UFO Conference a
while back.

His Fax number is 90 216 330 5515

Great Conference

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:18:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:22:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


Regarding:

>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 21:29:44 -0300
>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

Don wrote:

>I'm not going to go over this point by point but just make a few
>observations.

>The first is an obvious disregard for one simple fact and that
>is the stated Callair altitude that Arnold gave as 9,200 feet.
>I've brought this up before with James who seems to want to
>ignore it.

Don,

If I had seen this mentioned before, I certainly wouldn't have
ignored it. Your comments are a helpful insight.

>The fact is Arnold did not know what his true altitude was
>because he had no way of verifying it. He looked at his
>altimiter and saw 9,200 feet and gave that as his altitude. That
>could have been out as much as two or three thousand feet [don't
>say it can't happen, it's happened to me] from the station
>pressure at take-off in the warm lowlands to the cool temps a
>couple of hundred miles away in the mountains. Note Well that
>pilots are constantly updating their altimeter settings.

That's interesting and I don't recall Bruce taking this into
account in his Arnold 'paper'.


>Observation: If Arnold turned his aircraft to get a better look
>he would have turned [banked] his plane to keep the objects on
>his side [the left] for better visibility. In this case he would
>have turned right about 90 degrees. However he probably would
>have lost sight of the objects for the few seconds it took to
>accomplish the manouver because his left wing [the Callair is a
>low wing] would have come up, obscuring his vision.

I haven't see this useful information before.


>I've been a bit put off by the impression being floated, by
>some, that Arnold was some kind of dolt who was frittering
>around the mountains with no particular idea of where he was,
>didn't know birds from jets, couldn't estimate distances or work
>out a speed/time problem, dispite the fact that he would have
>done them dozens of times during each flight.

Very much appreciated. It doesn't follow that Kenneth Arnold was
an idiot if he made an exited, two minute, error of judgement.


>I believe that it was Bruce that wondered if birds could fly at
>6,000 or was it 9,000? feet. My Flight Supplement cautions
>pilots to watch out for Canada Geese at 32,000 feet when they
>are migrating. If I remember correctly a DC-3 struck a bird over
>Mount Everest during WW II while flying the "hump" as they
>called it.

I had checked out the altitude probabilities for migrating
American White Pelicans long ago and it seems they're known to
reach 14,000 feet during migration.

One reference featuring airplanes came from Ann Johnson: "When
they come migrating through, there are frequently flocks that
literally disappear from view as they bank and the sun is no
longer reflecting directly on them. Put the binocs on them and
there they are. But being a lousy judge of distance, I have no
idea how high they are. Much higher than the airplanes on
approach and they are still 10 miles out. You can put the
numbers on that".


>Another observation. We'll probably never know what Arnold saw
>that day as is true of many other cases..

Of course, that's exactly what I said in the newsletter.

>.. but I think you are drawing a long bow if you stick with your
>bird theory James.

As I've also said before, it's not really my theory, although I
do think it's a better conceivable explanation than meteors,
'earth lights', mirages, 'billowing snow clouds', etc.

What probably isn't saying much as none of these are tenable.

It's also of course merely an expansion of Martin Kottmeyer's
theory.

The difference is that if birds were the explanation, there are
distinctive similarities between the flight characteristics of
American White Pelicans and what Arnold described, much more so
than with Swans, as Kottmeyer proposed.

He's quite happy with the new suggestion as are many others who
embrace some scepticism. Doubtless the resident 'Roswell/MJ-
12/saucer' zealot is not. ;)

As I wouldn't bother to even read what's a fair bet to be the
usual diatribe, I'm not in the least interested, even if there's
some meaningful material amongst the standard drivel.


Although I hadn't intended to post the following on the UpDates
list, this was an addendum to the last newsletter and contains
some background which hasn't been published here before:

Realising that Arnold's long out-of-print book was crucial
evidence I hadn't seen, I was subsequently able to acquiring a
copy on loan. It was only on reading this, that the full
significance of Arnold's later sighting became apparent.

I also undertook some further research, which isn't mentioned in
the newsletter as it was already lengthier than intended.

What follows are relevant findings and additional background,
some of which is being published here for the first time. It
will hopefully assist in the understanding the rationalisation
behind the premise offered.

Indigenous to Washington state, the American White Pelican
(Pelecan userythrorhynchos) is the largest bird in North America
and amongst the biggest in the world. A predominately white
bird, with black primaries and outer secondaries, it weighs up
to 15 kg, (33 lb) and it's massive wingspan can extend to 3 m
(10 ft) or more.

The clue to possibly identifying the enigmatic objects remains
in Arnold's description of their flight characteristics. Often,
birds have a distinctive signature, the "jizz" as it's known,
and from this a bird's probable identity can be determined, even
if the sighting was inconclusive.

Don Baccus, an ornithologist, also commented to Michael Price
[see the newsletter for details of Michael's comments]:

"Michael, my first thought when I started reading your analysis
was white pelican. Several years ago, when training a good
birder in the finer details of splitting migrating hawks into
species, age, etc. at long distances at the beginning of the
fall migration season (i.e. training him to run our count), we
saw distant white 'blurps' fading in and out of visibility many
miles north. This was at the Goshutes, i.e. on the Utah/Nevada
border. It was near sunset. It was obvious that the sun was
reflecting on their underwings. They'd disappear momentarily and
then reappear in sequence. They were flying east-to-west and we
first spotted them somewhat to the northeast. I pegged them as
white pelicans almost immediately, as the whole cadence of the
thing matched the way white pelicans will soar in line (in this
case - they'll also 'V' up), and rather than flap all at once,
often will each begin to flap as each reaches the position where
the previous bird began to flap.  Same with turning, etc. Of
course, they'll also do this in more of a synchronized
formation, too, but I'm sure you've all seen white pelicans flap
and glide in the kind of pattern I'm describing.

I couldn't think of any bird that would show such a cadence and
literally twinkle white while switching from soaring to
flapping".


Investigating this suggestion further, there are notable
correlations with Arnold's observations.

Arnold claimed, "They flew like many times I have observed geese
to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they were
linked together".

"...they numbered nine. They were flying diagonally in echelon
formation..."

In 'Birds of the World', by Oliver L. Austin Jr. p 42, he
states:

"Pelicans fly in long lines, sometimes in a V formation,
sometimes abreast, sometimes in single file directly behind one
another. Most often they form a wide echelon, each bird slightly
behind and to one side of the next".

Arnold also mentions, "They were flying diagonally in echelon
formation with a larger gap in their echelon between the first
four and last five". Discussing this with Michael, he agreed
with my assessment that this is standard behaviour in a flock
and wrote, "all line-abreast, diagonal and astern flocking birds
develop gaps and fill them in randomly".

A further, distinctive connection, is Arnold's claim, "They
didn't fly like any aircraft I had ever seen before. In the
first place their echelon formation was backward from that
practiced by our Air Force. The elevation of the first craft was
greater than that of the last".

This is a typical feature of American White Pelicans flying in
formation.


Consider also his statements that:

"I observed the objects' outlines plainly as they flipped and
flashed against the snow and also against the sky".

"They fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately and
emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their
surfaces".

In 'The Birds', by Roger T. Peterson (Time-Life International),
he writes:

"Much the simplest form of flight, certainly much less
complicated than flapping or hovering, is gliding flight".

"Swallows employ gliding flight, - several strong wing strokes
and a glide. So do pelicans travelling in formation...".

"Gliding saves energy, but gravity and air conditions determine
how far a bird can skim before it must flap again".

The parallel between Arnold's objects in echelon which "flipped
and flashed", "fluttered and sailed", and a formation of
pelicans in echelon "beating and gliding", as 'Birds of the
World' describes their flight, seems evident.

As Don Baccus remarked, "I couldn't think of any bird that would
show such a cadence and literally twinkle white while switching
from soaring to flapping".

Michael Price also confirmed, "Assuming he was looking at birds,
the flipflop appearance of these birds would be visible whether
higher, same altitude, or lower as the sun might be reflecting
strongly and directly off white upper and/or underwing
surfaces".


Kenneth Arnold was perhaps after all on the right track when he
stated:

"They flew in a definite formation but erratically. As I
described them at the time their flight was like speed boats on
rough water or similar to the tail of a Chinese kite that I once
saw blowing in the wind. Or maybe it would be best to describe
their flight characteristics as very similar to a formation of
geese, in a rather diagonal chain-like line, as if they were
linked together".

Very similar to a formation of geese, but based on the above
evidence, remarkably like a formation of American White Pelicans.

It would have been an uncommon, if not rare, sighting, especially
with the birds flying south and a possibility which Arnold is
most unlikely to have examined.

If that should be the answer and Arnold mistakenly concluded the
objects must be distant airplanes, it plays havoc with his
estimated calculations.


It's these estimates of speed and distance which are open to
dispute and Arnold's 'second coming of the saucers' encounter
must surely be considered critical evidence that he was capable
of mistaking the distance and airspeed of birds.

American researcher and writer Martin Kottmeyer had previously
reached a similar conclusion and more details can be found at:

Resolving Arnold - Part 1, by Martin Kottmeyer
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n06/resolving-arnold-part-
1.html

Resolving Arnold - Part 2: Guess Again, by Martin Kottmeyer
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n07/resolving-arnold-part-
2.html

Kottmeyer thought that Arnold may have been deceived by a flight
of swans.


British researcher and author, Peter Brookesmith, asked for an
opinion on the results of my investigations and Kottmeyer wrote:

"James Easton's thought that pelicans might be a better guess
than swans sounds plausible to me at first blush and no
objections come to mind. I guessed swans primarily on the points
that I knew they flew high enough and were larger, whiter,
faster, and rarer than geese. If pelicans match the flight
characteristics better as claimed - cool, I like it.

The people asking we take Arnold's testimony of the distances at
face value naughtily ignore the reasons I gave why we can't. If
real, the objects had to be huge and visible to scores of
people. They also had to be supersonic and generating sonic
booms that thousands should have heard. The guys arguing about
the trigonometry keep putting the birds and the planes on
perpendicular paths, but overlook that Arnold explicitly turned
the plane to get a better look out the side window. The paths
were parallel. Once you put that straight, the angular sizes and
velocity implicit in Arnold's report can fit coherently those of
a swan. I'm not sure if the speed or size of pelicans would
materially change the math, but if the flight characteristics
are a valid signature I wouldn't sweat such details.

Give Easton my appreciation for offering the alternative".


Any proposition that the American White Pelican was responsible
for Arnold's reported sighting, must be able to substantiate
that these birds are known to fly relatively fast and at high
altitude.

The ideal person to offer an informed opinion would be a pilot
who has encountered pelicans in flight and Mike Havener is a
glider pilot who wrote an article on his experiences.

He told me, "The birds I was soaring with were at about 3000 -
4000 feet MSL. We were flying in a continuous band of lift, so
we were continually climbing. I have seen pelicans at higher
altitudes when the lift is really good (maybe 6000 feet MSL)".

"The glider I was flying has a 38 mph stall speed... as a matter
of fact, I was flying at 52 mph between thermals, and these
birds were staying with me".

So, it seems whilst still not quite supersonic, pelicans are no
slouches and under ideal flying conditions, could show a
surprising turn of wing.

Mike added, "Since writing the article, I have received several
letters from other glider pilots who have shared the same
experience. Though none of them mentioned their flight profiles,
these reports have come from various locations around the
world". [End]


There's more evidence than this, however, that covers the gist
of it.

Don't forget, these are no ordinary birds, they have a massive,
up to 10ft wingspan, all white, except for the black wing tips.


We could put it this way; supposing that any pilot encountered a
small formation of migrating AWPs at high altitude, had never
seen this unusual sight before and as such, didn't recognise
these as birds at all.

What would he be likely to observe in perfect conditions?

Say..a formation of reflective, bright objects, flying in a
diagonal echelon, with maybe some of the 'objects' slightly
ahead of the others. They would occasionally 'flutter' and
'sail' as they flapped and then glided. From distance, it would
look something like a 'kite's tail' (he might even describe
their motion in flight as 'bobbing', skimming, or looking
something like a stone skipping across water :) ).

If this was also in a post-war era of aviation development,
especially military and when it would be no real surprise to see
new airplanes, especially ones which were still 'secret', would
the pilot ever realise, or would anyone suggest, that he had
seen a formation of AWPs?


If this did apply to Kenneth Arnold, how could he not realise
these were birds and believe the 'objects' were much further
distant and considerably faster than they truly were.

It would have to be that there was evidence these could not have
been birds, or his overall perception was somehow in error.

Although that's another matter and this is already too long, one
question which needs to be resolved is how far, maximum, could
any bright, reflective object of approx. 10ft by 5ft, be visible
from the air?


Peter Kingsmill is a naturalist and Director General of The
Redberry Pelican Project (Canada) Foundation. I had also asked
Peter for his assessment and he replied, "Everything in Arnold's
description that you quoted points to the strong possibility he
saw a flock of AWPs... the formation, the allusion to the tail
of a Chinese kite, etc".

"I have also been baffled by optical illusions of distance when
these birds are against a backdrop (hills)".


Kathleen Andersen, who lives in the Mt Rainier area and has
written about the Arnold case, recently asked some good
questions about the factual existence of any AWPs in that area,
as she had never known of this.

Peter was one of the relevant experts I contacted and he
confirms, "In general, American White Pelicans breed in the mid-
west USA and prairie and northern Canada (as far north as Fort
Smith, NWT). So indeed, they could be around Washington state,
where, incidentally, they also nest in small quantities".

I'm hopeful of shortly receiving some further substantiation
about this and details going back to the 1940s.

All irrelevant of course if the answer lies elsewhere!


James.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                         Re: Guide To U.S. Sightings

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:56:30
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:29:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Guide To U.S. Sightings


Source: The Detroit News,

http://detnews.com:80/1999/features/9906/08/06080021.htm

Stig

***

What's New

Compiled by Detroit News Staff Writer Barbara Hoover

**

Books: Aliens? Look around you

Itching to ditch this tired old planet? Your way out might just
be a copy of UFO USA, a detailed guide to various extra-worldly
sightings here and across the nation. Michigan turns out to be a
great place to catch that cross-galactic ride -- the authors
list it as a certifiable "hot spot." Local incidents include the
"Wave of 1966" that swept across the Ann Arbor area (prompting
the notorious "swamp gas" explanation), as well as 1995
sightings by air-traffic controllers in Flint. UFO USA is
published by Hyperion and costs $12.95.

<snip>

Copyright 1999, The Detroit News








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                DA Investigating Mysterious Cow Deaths In New

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:06:12
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:19:24 -0400
Subject: DA Investigating Mysterious Cow Deaths In New


Source: Albuquerque Journal,

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/6news06-09.htm

Stig

***

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

DA Investigating Recent Cow Deaths

By Brendan Smith
Journal Staff Writer

**

No one is sure what killed a calf and two cows last month on the
Tres Ritos Ranch north of Questa, but ranch manager Tom Reed
definitely finds the deaths unusual.

"I come up with more questions than answers," Reed said Monday.
"I wouldn't be surprised if we never do find out who or what is
doing this. It may be something totally unexpected."

The last cow was found dead May 23 in a pasture near where a
dead calf and a dead cow were found earlier in the month, Reed
said. The last cow had its udder cleanly cut off and a deep hole
with smoothly cut edges gouged into its neck, Reed said.

Each of the three animals had unexplained wounds and missing
body parts, Reed said.

The 8th Judicial District Attorney's Office takes cattle
mutilations seriously, although no one has ever been charged
with the crime, Assistant District Attorney John Day said. The
judicial district covers Taos, Colfax and Union counties.

"If someone is up there killing livestock, that's a crime," Day
said Tuesday. "Whether (cattle mutilations) are a secret
government project or aliens, that's out of my realm."

Dozens of reported cattle mutilations in northern New Mexico
dating back to the 1970s have spawned theories about aliens sent
to Earth to slice up cows.

Reed said he couldn't explain the three recent deaths from his
herd of 40 cattle, but he isn't convinced aliens cut up his
cattle.

"I would lean more to the government or cults or something like
that. I really don't know anything. I guess that's just
speculation," he said. "If the government isn't involved, I
think they're covering it up."

Gabe Valdez, a retired State Police officer who has investigated
cattle mutilations near Dulce, said he is working with the
District Attorney's Office in investigating the recent cattle
deaths on Tres Ritos Ranch.

Valdez, who lives in Albuquerque, is now a field investigator
for the National Institute for Discovery Science, a private
organization that has volunteered to pay for necropsies and lab
tests on the dead cattle.

The institute, based in Las Vegas, Nev., researches cattle
mutilations, UFOs and reported encounters with aliens. The
organization is funded entirely by a Las Vegas entrepreneur who
is interested in the paranormal field, said Colm Kelleher, the
institute's deputy administrator.

Reed found the first dead cow on May 4 in a pasture on the
3,200-acre Tres Ritos Ranch. The cow's right eye and right ear
were missing with a circular cut around the right ear extending
down the neck, Reed said.

"There were no tracks where she was injured or hurting and
dragged herself around," Reed said. "She was just there."

The calf was found dead four days later in the same area. The
calf's right eye and tongue were missing and the genital area
had been cut open, Reed said. The calf's rump also was missing
but Reed thinks birds may have eaten it.

Valdez said he saw flipped cow patties around the third dead cow
that may have been caused by "turbulence," but Valdez didn't
know if the turbulence was from an alien spaceship.

"It was an unexplained animal death," Valdez said. "Don't ask me
what I think. I don't know who's doing it."

The New Mexico Livestock Board investigated about 30 cattle
mutilations in northern New Mexico in 1993 and 1994, including
one mutilated cow reported by Reed at the Tres Ritos Ranch in
May 1994.

The Livestock Board concluded most of the 1993-94 cattle
mutilations were not caused by predators or scavengers. An
earlier investigation by the board found there was "possible
involvement of clandestine Satanic groups."

Predators or scavengers were blamed for similar cattle
mutilations from the 1970s investigated in 1980 by an ex-FBI
agent for the 1st Judicial District Attorney in Santa Fe.

The Las Vegas institute hasn't determined what caused the recent
deaths of the cows on Tres Ritos Ranch.

The institute has researched about a dozen unexplained cattle
deaths, most in New Mexico or Utah, over the past three years,
Kelleher said.

After conducting necropsies and lab tests, some of those cattle
deaths were determined to be caused by infectious disease,
accidental poisoning from insecticides, or the work of predators
or scavengers, Kelleher said.

Other cases of cattle mutilations have proved more mysterious.

"There are a small handful for which there are no logical
explanations," Kelleher said.


Copyright =A9 1997, 1998, 1999 Albuquerque Journal






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                  Re: OZ: Search Fails To Find Clues To UFO

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:52:31
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:24:33 -0400
Subject: Re: OZ: Search Fails To Find Clues To UFO


Source: ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation),

http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/state/qld/archive/metqld-9jun1999-11.htm

Stig

***

Search fails to find clues to UFO

Wednesday 9 June, 1999 (11:06am AEST)

**

A Gladstone police search has failed to find any trace of an
object seen falling from the sky near Calliope.

There were several reports of sightings of objects in the sky
last night, including a truck driver who says he saw a flaming
object move across the sky near Gin Gin, west of Bundaberg.

One of the sightings was made by a Burnett resident Margaret
Sheppard.

"It was just this brilliant green object that lit up the sky and
came from the north and landed in the area west of Kingaroy,"
she said.

"When it was gone, poof, dark - the lights went out again."


=A9 1999 Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Updated: Wed Jun 9 11:15:03 1999 (AEST)

AEST =3D Australian Eastern Standard Time







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                          Australia Searches For ET

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:18:28 GMT
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:39:48 -0400
Subject: Australia Searches For ET


Source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_364000/364833.stm

Go to the site for photos of the new detector and the Parkes
Telescope!


Stig

***

BBC News Online: Sci/Tech

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Published at 16:44 GMT 17:44 UK

**

Australia searches for ET

By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse

*

One of the most powerful searches for aliens in space is about
to begin from Australia. It will simultaneously listen to 58
million radio channels.

"The instrument is one of the most powerful in the world and
it's going to sift the skies to look for artificial signatures
from other intelligent civilisations, should they exist," says
Dr Frank Stootman, Chairman of Seti (Search for
Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) Australia and co-director of the
Southern Serendip project.

"This is a very significant experiment that will contribute to
testing some important scientific paradigms about the origin and
development of self-conscious life in the universe," he added.


Right time, right place


The search for ET will be carried out using the Parkes telescope
in New South Wales. It is the southern hemisphere's largest
radio astronomy telescope.

According to Carol Oliver of Seti Australia, observations made
at Parkes are considered to have the best chance of discovering
ET because of its geographical location and the amount of time
the Southern Serendip team is able to use the telescope.

The Southern Serendip project runs in parallel with normal radio
astronomy at the telescope - it takes the same signal feed as
the astronomers working on an all-sky survey, thus making double
use of telescope time.

Radio waves travel vast distances through space and are
relatively easy to detect. This is why scientists believe they
offer the best chance of discovering extra-terrestrials, either
by looking for a deliberate beacon or by detecting 'radio
leakage' from their internal broadcasts.


Multi-channel listening


The Seti centre at the University of Western Sydney Macarthur
developed a new electronic analysis system in order to look more
closely for any faint ET signals in the Parkes radio data.

The searchers divide the radio data into small frequency bands
because the ET signal would probably be very faint.

The Seti centre has increased the number of radio channels it
can listen to simultaneously from eight million to a staggering
58 million channels. That's like having 58 million radios, each
tuned to a slightly different frequency. It will significantly
improve the chances of finding ET.

The increase in channels has been made possible in part by a
generous donation from the Seti Institute in California, which
had its 56 million channel Project Phoenix experiment located at
Parkes in the first half of 1995.


Relevant Stories:

*Screening for alien life  (17 May 99 | Sci/Tech)
*A signal from ET?  (31 Mar 99 | Sci/Tech)
*Anyone out there?  (09 Jun 99 | Sci/Tech)


Internet Links

*SETI Australia
*Southern SERENDIP


The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet
sites.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 20:30:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:04:33 -0400
Subject: Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon


>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:46:53 -0700
>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

<snip>

>"Paranoia runs deep, into your heart it may creep"
>Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young

No, no, no...

"Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep...
It starts when you're always afraid..
Step outa line the man comes and takes you away..."
--Buffalo Springfield






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 23:40:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:36:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:31:07 EDT
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:42:48 -0500
>>Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:07:27 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

><snip>

>>Wouldn't you agree that this film would be much more compelling
>>evidence than a spoken or written account of having seen something?

>Since I havene't seen this film (and neither have you), why
>would it necessarily be compelling evidence?  There are all
>sorts of UFO film and photos which are dismissed out-of-hand as
>hoaxes.  Oh, Arnold the "fruitcake" hoaxed a film to vindicate
>himself!  Or maybe the images are of poor quality and lack
>points of reference.  You can't tell much from that.   In that
>case, spoken and written accounts might contain better quality
>information.


What an absurd, convoluted, crappy cop-out! And I thought you
were supposed to be a UFO investigator. Find the film and then
analyze it.

>>Have you ever seen a still from this film published anywhere in
>>the vast UFO literature?

>Can't say that I have.  So?  What if all Arnold got on film was
>nondescript dots?  What if the film was over- or underexposed
>and all detail was wiped out?  There wouldn't be much to
>publish, would there?  Since I haven't seen the film (and
>neither have you), how can we make any judgments about it?
>

David,

I never said that I could make any judgments or claims about
Arnold's alleged film, having never, as you quite rightly say,
seen it. Has anyone else?

My point was simply to raise it as an issue in regards to
Arnold's overall reliability. He made a claim to having seen
nine, disc-shaped objects over Mt. Rainier. Five weeks later he
claimed to have encountered another large flight of UFOs. In
1952 he claimed to have filmed two UFOs, one of which was
transparent and led him to conclude that UFOs were living
organisms. Over the next few years he reported another three or
four sightings.

I thought you might find his claim of filmed UFOs worthy of
interest and further pursuit. Instead, you and Maccabee both
respond to this list as if Arnold's claim of having filmed
"living" UFOs were somehow my problem.

Then you whine about what would we know if the images turned out
to be fuzzy or not too clear. Document the existence of the film
in the first place and then you can worry about any images
captured thereon.

I frankly don't care whether his captured images are good or
not. I simply want to know whether something he claimed (the
film) can be veriified or not. Something you and Maccabee don't
seem the least bit interested in.

As hot-shot UFO investigators, I thought one or the other of you
might make a token phone call or two in order to determine
whether such a film still exists, or ever did exist.

But, no, you'd rather argue angles of elevation ad infinitum.

>>Arnold had a working relationship with
>>Ray Palmer, editor of Fate magazine, who I'm sure would have
>>been only too happy to publish a picture of the real thing.

>Would he have published a dot?  A smudge?  A washed-out,
>overexposed image?

Ray Palmer? You bet your ass! He would have published anything
he could have gotten his hands on (and demonstrably did).
Incidentally, not having seen the claimed Arnold film yourself,
why do you assume it was of such poor quality?

<snip>

>Well, how did my sensational "evidence" come out?  All I got
>were two faint red dots barely visible through the clouds and
>smeared around by camera motion.  Do you think Ray Palmer would
>have published that, even if it had been of the "real thing"
>and I had been the famous Kenneth Arnold?

See the above and consult Jerry Clark, not to mention past
issues of publications edited by Ray Palmer. Palmer would have
published _anything_. And in the absence of anything, he wasn't
beyond creating his own evidence. Apparently you're not familiar
with Palmer's checkered career, which is closely intertwined
with Arnold's, as in co-author of Arnold's autobiography. Palmer
wound up editing a quarterly, "Inner Space," which adhered (if
that's the word) to the theory of a hollow Earth, the source of
the saucers, among other things. He may not have given rise to
the entire UFO phenomenon, as John Keel claims, but he certainly
predated (and predisposed) its conspiratorial ambience. Just in
case you ever wonder where you're coming from, although I don't
get the impression that introspection is one of your strong
suits -- or even a passing fancy.

>>In that same vast literature, have you ever run across a single
>>account by anyone else who ever claimed to have seen Arnold's film?

>No.  Can' say that I have.  So?  Without knowing _anything_
>about what was supposed to be on the film, you seem to jump to
>an awful lot of conclusions.  Maybe the film never publicly
>materialized because the images were of such poor quality they
>were worthless as evidence.


Excuse me, but haven't you just done the same thing of which you
accuse me of? Besides, the point -- which I continually have to
drone into your head -- is this: _I don't ultimately care what
is on the film._ I don't care if it's clear or vague, although,
obviously, the clearer the better.

I simply want to see some corroboration of its existence by
someone other than Arnold. Unlike his 1947 sighting, which none
of us can corroborate or disprove, here is a patent claim of
physical evidence in Arnold's own words, which should be subject
to proof or disproof.

I simply asked -- and still ask -- what, if anything, the
historical (or contemporary) UFO literature had to say about
same. As far as you and Maccabee are concerned, you've already
answered my questions. You aren't the least bit interested in
Arnold's other claims, as long as your mathematical analyzes of
his first sighting (whatever that represents) holds up in court.

>>For the record, I included Arnold's own account of his Mt.
>>Rainier sighting as "What Happened on June 24, 1947," in UFOs
>>1947-1997: Fifty Years of Flying Saucers, co-edited with Hilary
>>Evans. I have copies of the illustrated, 272-page hardback
>>available for $19.95, plus $3.00 s/h.

>Shameless plug slipped in nicely.  Never hurts to exploit the
>"fruitcakes" for a little gelt, eh Dennis?

Friedman does it all the time, Dave. I hadn't in awhile, so
thought I would. Feel free to shamelessly plug your own
publications. Er, you _do_ have your own publications to plug,
don't you? Sorry, but you set me up.

Actually, this perfectly good survey of 50 years of UFO history
has sold miserably, no matter what plugs I or the publisher or
the publicists have made in its favor. Proving once again, that
you _can_ keep a good book down. Jerry Clark referred to it as
"the most intellectually stimulating UFO book of the year," or
somesuch, causing sales to drop off even further. Thanks a
bunch, Jerry! Couldn't you have said it surpassed Corso and
Birnes in sensationalism, Strieber in weirdness, and Jacobs in
believability? _Then_ we might have sold a copy or two.

But, NO000, we tried to compile a reasonable, responsible
account/history of UFOs over the last half-century, and this is
the thanks we get?  Try a copy, David, you might like it. Ditto,
Bruce. A dollar off for my autograph, and that goes for all you
other fruitcakes out there who don't by any of my publications.
Allow me this one rant: As a whole, ufologists are the biggest
cheapskates and tightwads on the planet. There, I feel much
better!

>>Aside from Arnold, the book contains articles by Jenny Randles,
>>Jerome Clark, Jacques Vallee, Bill Chalker, Ray Fowler, Chris
>>Rutkowski, Robert Durant, David Perkins, Col. Hector
>>Quintanilla, Michael Swords, Karl Pflock, James Moseley, Jan
>>Aldrich, Vicente-Juan Ballester Omos and others.

>I can see that some of us aren't on your social list.  Sniffle.


Yes, but many of us are. Maybe if you had been nicer...and I had
known you way back when.

>>In September of this year I'll be hosting the 36th annual
>>National UFO Conference here in San Antonio. Speakers include
>>Whitley Strieber, Kevin Randle, Joe Firmage, psychotherapist
>>Constance Clear (author of "Reaching for Reality"), Jim Moseley,
>>Tom Deuley,  Walt Andrus, and Linda Corley, who conducted the
>>last in-depth interview with Jesse Marcel, Sr.

>>Details to follow soon.

>Actually sounds interesting.  Keep us posted.

Thanks, David, I will.


>Anybody know anything about LInda Corley's interview with
>Marcel?  Haven't heard of it before.

>David Rudiak


Corley's interview with Marcel is a conference scoop. It
reportedly contains some "surprises," the details of which I
myself am not yet aware. (I have no idea what Firmage is going
to say, either.) Third parties say it's interesting, though, to
say the least.

Financials for fruitcakes to follow.

Dennis Stacy
Alliterator





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 99 19:38:05 PDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:06:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:17:16 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:48:06 -0400
>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


Dennis,


>No, logic such as this simply means that when you're dealing
>with an anecdotal account the only fact you have is the anecdote
>itself. Which anecdote may or may not be true in particular, or
>may reflect varying degrees of subjectivity and misperception in
>general.

>The only evidence we have for Arnold's sighting is Arnold's
>account of same.

Not true.  There's also the Fred M. Johnson's corroborating
sighting.

C'mon, Dennis.  If I didn't know any better, I'd think we were
dealing here with Phil Klass, desperate to demolish the case
(or, failing that, Arnold himself), in the hope that once if
this hated case (or, failing that, witness) gets killed off, the
entire UFO phenomenon will follow.  I know you don't like it
when people complain of what looks like a pretty consistent
anti-UFO bias, but jeez, you sure do quack like one....

>Less than five weeks after his first sighting, he was reporting a second
>encounter with an even larger flock (no pun intended) of flying saucers. A
>few years later he claimed to have filmed two flying saucers over Mt.
>Lassen, one of which was transparent. I'm not sure how many sightings he
>claimed in all, but it would appear to be another three or four.

So what?  Arnold was often in the air, in an area rich with UFO
sightings, and in the early years he was actively looking for
UFOs. No shred of evidence exists that he was a fruitcake, and I
am surprised and disappointed -- and, let's add, sickened --
that we're having to deal, in 1999, with a tired, wretched slur
like this one. Isn't there a statute of limitations on the
trashing of witnesses?

>And please note that in discussing Arnold I haven't mentioned Maury Island
>once.



How kind of you.  In fact, Maury Island tells us just how
honest a guy Arnold was.  To those of us who look back at it, it
seems transparently obvious that Crisman and Dahl were lying
through their respective chops.  Arnold was such a straight
arrow that it never occurred to him his "witnesses" might not be
the same.  Sadly, years of ridicule and harassment led him to a
considerably darker view of his fellow humans. I guess we can be
happy that he is not around to read this new round of
Arnold-bashing.

Unlike you, I knew Arnold, who was all he was cracked up to be:
sharp, honest, shrewd, conservative, and unimaginative.  Not, in
short, a fruitcake by any definition except, I gather, yours.
His interest in UFOs as such was long past, but he did take the
trouble to answer my questions about various claims attributed
to him. One, which first surfaced in a Harold T. Wilkins book,
was a supposed quote asserting that Arnold had observed evidence
of invisible entities in his home.  He said the story was a
flat-out fabrication. He had no idea where it came from.

As I have already pointed out, evidently to zero effect, Arnold
is not the only observer to witness an aerial phenomenon which
resembled some sort of organic entity.  One famous case -- more
fantastic than any Arnold ever reported -- involved Philadelphia
police officers who on September 26, 1950, saw an unidentified
object fall from the sky and come down in a field.  It turned
out to be a gelatinous mass which dissolved half an hour later.
Oh yeah, excuse me.  I forgot.  Fruitcakes. Never mind.

Jerry Clark







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                         W.W.W Australia Now On Web

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@fan.net.au>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:41:42 +1000
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:52:40 -0400
Subject: W.W.W Australia Now On Web


The Keith Basterfield Network Australasia -
http://www.fan.net.au/~tkbnetw/new

The Keith Basterfield Network Australasia
E-Mail  tkbnetw@fan.net.au
http://www.fan.net.au/~tkbnetw

****************************************************************
UFO Australian  Research Network Hot Line Number
                       1800 77 22 88 Free Call
****************************************************************


Hi everyone

W.W.W Australia is now on the Web take a look.

If your logo is not there please send it to me or inform me if
you wish to join in.

____________________________________________

W.W.W AUSTRALIA
____________________________________________

http://www.fan.net.au/~tkbnetw/new/world.htm

Regards Diane Harrison & Team
Co Director of The Australian UFO Research Network 1800 77 22 88
Australian Skywatch Director








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                       Re: What Have We Really Learned

From: Rob Irving <RobIrving@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:11:01 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:21:13 -0400
Subject: Re: What Have We Really Learned


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: What Have We Really Learned
>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 99 09:30:39 PDT

>>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Ufology: What have we really learned?
>>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:58:06 PDT

Jerome,

>Likewise, occultist/
>fantasy-writer Andy Collins (of whom I doubt that any but a tiny
>number of non-Brit list members have heard) below:

>>Andrew Collins, a few years ago, was going to surprise everyone
>>with this remarkable new evidence about UFOs. He held a
>>conference in which people were to pay $30 per head at a meeting
>>room at Madison Square Gardens in New York City, and when 30 to
>>50 people attended, there was no 'new evidence' to be had.

>I am astonished.  "There was no `new evidence' to be had."  I am
>shocked.  Shocked.  This has got to be one of the hugest
>scandals I've ever heard of in all my years as a ufologist.

It's likely Jerry meant to say Colin Andrews (the cerealogist),
for it was he, the self-conferred "world's foremost expert on
ufology" (so it says on the flyer), who appeared at Madison Sq
Gardens.

best,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

             New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell Story

From: Kal K. Korff <KalKorff@KalKorff.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:27:28 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:18:16 -0400
Subject: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell Story


Dear List,

Following on the heels of Professor Charles Moore's thorough
refutation and disproving of David Rudiak's attempts to deny
that Project Mogul is THE explanation for Roswell, I am afraid I
have some more "bad news" for those who still emotionally cling
to an "ET explanation" for Roswell, despite the existence of no
hard, credible evidence to support this hypothesis.

At any rate, I have received several requests concerning former
Roswell mortician Glenn Dennis' story, and especially about a
new Roswell expose that is coming out, exposing various claims
by David Rudiak, Frank Kaufmann, Corso, Don Schmitt, etc.

While I do not know everything that is in this expose as of yet,
and don't even have a completed copy, here is some text from the
Glenn Dennis portion. This information, as far as I am aware,
has been outright ignored by mainstream UFOlogy and certainly
CUFOS, the Center for UFO Studies.

The information, by any reasonable criteria, is persuasive, and
those who still endorse Glenn Dennis now have the burden of
refuting it.

I should note that to the best of my knowledge, and much to his
credit, Kevin Randle has withdrawn his endorsement of Glenn
Dennis. Perhaps he will do the same for Frank Kaufmann when that
information comes out shortly as well.

This information is from a USAF report that as far as I know,
HAS NEVER BEEN REVIEWED OR COMMENTED ON, at least this portion
of it, on ANY of the main internet UFO-related web sites or
publications.

If anyone knows anything different, please let me know. Either
this fell through the cracks, per se, or the UFO field chose to
ignore it, for whatever reasons. Perhaps it did not, and maybe I
am just unaware that is has been addressed.

Can anyone cite a single reference on the web where this
information was addressed?

It is my hope that CUFOS will now publish a retraction of their
endorsements of Glenn Dennis' testimony, as well as other
Roswell "witnesses" that they have promoted over the years, at
the expense of the truth. I also hope that other pro-ET Roswell
authors will also RETRACT their endorsements with just as much
zeal and energy as they originally promoted them.

I doubt this will happen, though.

The pro-ET Roswell promoters _owe_ the public this, I believe,
so that consumers do not continue to be MISLED and are informed
of the latest information.

As this expose's implications make clear, the UFO field, CUFOS,
etc., have a less than admirable track record of setting their
own records straight. :-(

Maybe they have and I just missed it, but here's the data. It is
now up to those who don't accept it, to disprove it.

Good luck.... :-)

Kal

---

The USAF Even Disproves Glenn Dennis

"Dennis recalled that the nurse was quickly and suspiciously
shipped out either the same day or the day after he met with her
in the Roswell AAF Officers=92 Club. If this allegation was true,
it certainly seemed unusual and verifiable. Therefore, the
morning reports, the certified daily personnel accounting
records required to be kept by all Army Air Forces units at that
time, were obtained and reviewed. These reports did not indicate
that a nurse or any other person was reassigned on the days
alleged, July 8 or July 9, 1947 (FN 40) The morning reports of
the 427th Army Air Forces Base Unit (AAFBU) Squadron "M" the
unit that all the medical personnel at Roswell AAF were assigned
in July 1947, did not indicate a sudden overseas transfer of a
nurse or any other person.

Records indicated that one nurse was reassigned on July 23,
1947, over two weeks after the purported events described by
Dennis. (FN41) That nurse was transferred by normal personnel
rotation procedures to Ft. Worth AAF (now Carswell AFB), Texas,
where she remained on active duty until March 1949. (FN-42) In
fact, Squadron "M" morning reports revealed the strength of the
Army Nurse Corps (ANC) at Roswell AAF for July 1947 was only
five nurses. Of these five nurses none were transferred overseas
or killed in a plane crash -- the "rumored" fate of the missing
nurse.(FN)

This review of the hospital morning reports also indicated that
the name of the missing nurse provided by the witness (Glenn
Dennis) was inaccurate. The witnesses (Dennis) stated in several
interviews that he believed the nurse=92s name was Naomi Maria
Selff. (FN-44) A comprehensive search of morning reports and
rosters from the Roswell AAF Station Hospital indicated that no
person by this name, or similar name, had ever served there.
This finding was supported by a search of personnel records at
the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, Mo.,
a part of the National Archives and Records Administration. NPRC
also did not find a record that a person named Naomi Maria Selff
had ever served in any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.

These findings were consistent with previous efforts of several
pro-UFO researchers (Kal Korff, Kevin Randle) who have also
attempted to locate this nurse or members of her family. They,
likewise, were also unable to confirm her existence. (FN-45)
While some UFO theorists continue to allege that this absence of
records regarding a nurse by this name is part of a conspiracy
to withhold information, the most likely reason for the lack of
records is that this name is inaccurate.

Even though the name of the nurse is incorrect, it appears that
a nurse assigned to the Roswell AAF Station Hospital in 1947 may
have been the basis for the claims. Eileen Mae Fanton was the
only nurse of the five assigned to Roswell AAF in July 1947,
whose personal circumstances and physical attributes not only
resembled those of the missing nurse, but appeared to be nearly
an exact match.


The "Missing Nurse?"

1st Lt. Eileen M. Fanton was assigned to the Roswell Army Air
Field Station Hospital from December 26, 1946 until September 4,
1947. (FN-46) Fanton, who is deceased, was retired from the U.S.
Air Force at the rank of Captain on April 30, 1955, for a
physical disability.(FN-47)

In this account, the missing nurse is described as single, "real
cute, like a small Audrey Hepburn, with short black hair, dark
eyes and olive skin."(FN-48) Lieutenant Fanton was single in
1947, 5=921" tall, weighed 100 pounds, had black hair, dark eyes,
and was of Italian descent. (FN-49) Dennis also stated that the
nurse was of the Catholic faith, and had been "strictly raised"
according to Catholic beliefs. (FN-50) Fanton=92s personnel record
listed her as Roman Catholic, a graduate of St. Catherine=92s
Academy in Springfield, Kentucky, and as having received her
nursing certification from St. Mary Elizabeth=92s Hospital in
Louisville, Kentucky.(FN-51)

The witness also recalled that the "missing nurse" was a
lieutenant, was a general nurse at the hospital, and had sent
him correspondence at a later date which stated she was in
London, England with a New York, N.Y. APO number (military
overseas mailing address) as the return address.(FN-52) Records
revealed that Fanton was a First Lieutenant (promoted from
Second Lieutenant to First Lieutenant in June 1947), and she was
classified as a "nurse. General duty."(FN-53) Records also
indicated that of the five nurses assigned to the Roswell AAF
Station Hospital in July 1947, she was the only one that later
served a tour duty in England. Furthermore, she was assigned to
the 7510th USAF Hospital, APO 240, New York, N.Y., where she
served from June 1952 until April 1955.(FN-54) The 7510th USAF
Hospital was located approximately 45 miles north of London at
Wimpoole Park, Cambridge, England.

An additional similarity between Fanton and the "missing nurse"
is that her personnel record indicated that she quickly departed
Roswell AAF and it is probable that the hospital staff would not
have provided information concerning her departure. Fanton=92s
unannounced departure from Roswell AAF, on September 4, 1947,
was to be admitted to Brooke General Hospital, Ft. Sam Houston,
Texas, for a medical condition.(FN-55) This condition was first
diagnosed in January 1946 and ultimately led to her medical
retirement in 1955.(FN-56) Therefore, if someone other than a
family member contacted the Station Hospital at Roswell AAF and
indeed inquired about Fanton, as Dennis stated he did, the staff
was simply protecting her privacy as a patient. The staff was
not participating in a sinister "cover-up" of information as
alleged by UFO theorists.


The Pediatrician

In at least two interviews, the witness (Dennis) stated that a
pediatrician stationed at the hospital was involved in the
events he described. (FN-57) When asked by an interviewer how he
knew the pediatrician was involved, Dennis was quoted as
replying, "I know he was involved because I saw him there."
(FN-58) Dennis is also quoted as saying that he and the
pediatrician were "pretty good friends," and after the
pediatrician left the military he (the pediatrician) set up a
practice in Farmington, N.M. "I used to go fishing all the time
up north and I visited him several times up there and he was
involved," Dennis said. "I don=92t remember his name, I think he
is still practicing in Farmington."(FN-59)

A review of personnel files and interviews with former members
of the Roswell AAF/Walker AFB hospital staff, revealed that only
one physician ever relocated to Farmington, N.M. following his
military service. The former Capt. Frank B. Nordstrom served at
Walker AFB from June 1951 until June 1953.(FN-60) Records also
revealed that Nordstrom was indeed a pediatrician and while at
Walker AFB, served as the Chief of Pediatric Services.(FN-61)
When Nordstrom, a resident of the small town of Aztec, New
Mexico, was interviewed for this report, he stated that he did
not recall ever meeting Dennis and could not recall any events
that supported any of his claims (see signed sworn statement in
Appendix B.)(FN-62)

Farmington (population 8,000 in 954) is located in the primarily
rural Four Corners region of New Mexico approximately 300 miles
northwest of Roswell. According to Nordstrom, Farmington did not
have a pediatrician before his arrival in 1954. From 1954 until
approximately 1970, Nordstrom believes he was the only
pediatrician in the area. His recollections were confirmed by a
local Farmington pharmacist, Charles E. Clouthier.(FN-63)
Clouthier also served at the Walker AFB hospital, from 1955 to
1957, and following his military service returned to Farmington,
his hometown, where he had lived since 1934. Clouthier has been
employed by and co-owned a business, Farmington Drug, since
1957. He is familiar with most, if not all, of the doctors who
practice in Farmington and the Four Corners region of New
mexico. Clouthier=92s confirmation that Nordstrom was the first
pediatrician to practice in the Farmington area, was based on
both his frequent professional contacts with the local
physicians and his experiences as a longtime Farmington
resident.(FN-64)

Although Nordstrom believed that he was the pediatrician
described (by Glenn Dennis), he was at a loss to explain how
Dennis gained information concerning his military and civilian
employment history. In a signed sworn statement, Nordstrom
stated that he did not recall ever meeting Dennis and had
certainly never been visited by Dennis as he had claimed.

One possible source of the information is that from
approximately 1958 until approximately 1961 Dennis operated a
drugstore in Aztec, New Mexico, a small town near Farmington
where Nordstrom resides. However, Nordstrom also did not recall
any contact with Dennis in his capacity as a drugstore operator.


The "Big Redheaded Colonel"
An indication that Dennis might have mistaken the date of actual
events was that he was quoted in at least one book as having
said that the officer who threatened him in the hospital was a
big redheaded colonel.(FN-74) Research revealed that only one
tall colonel with red hair was known to have been assigned to
the Walker AFB hospital. Colonel Lee F. Ferrell was the hospital
commander from October 1954 until June 1960. (FN-75) Ferrell was
6=921" tall and had red hair.(FN-76)


"Captain =91Slatts=92 Wilson"
In at least two interviews Dennis repeatedly made reference to a
nurse named "Captain Wilson."(FN-77) He recalled that "Captain
Wilson", who he believed was the head nurse, was another nurse
stationed at the Roswell AAF hospital in July 1947.(FN-78)
Dennis claims he spoke to "Captain Wilson" several times in
reference to the alleged missing nurse.(FN-79)

He claims that on the day after he met with the missing nurse at
the Roswell AAF Officers=92 Club, he attempted to contact her by
telephone at the hospital but was told that she wasn=92t on
duty.(FN-80) Instead, he spoke with "Captain Wilson." "I called
the station I knew she [the missing nurse] always worked at,"
Dennis said, "She was a general nurse=85I was informed that she
wasn=92t working that day. [Dennis then telephoned] An old girl by
the name of Wilson, Captain Wilson, and I asked her, =91what
happened=92? She said, =91Glen, I don=92t know what happened, she=92s
not on duty.=92 She said she=92d try to get word to her [the missing
nurse] that you [Dennis] want to talk to her."(FN-81) Later in
the same interview Dennis further described Wilson. "We called
her =91Slatts=92 Wilson who was a big tall nurse about six foot two
or three - big tall skinny gal - and we called her =91Slatts=92 -
everybody called her =91Slatts.=92

She=92s the one who told me she heard there was a plane crash and
the nurses went down on a training mission.(FN-82)

The testimony appeared to clearly identify by name, rank,
position, physical attributes and by a distinctive nickname,
"Slatts," another nurse present at the hospital in July 1947.
But a review of the morning reports of the Roswell AAF hospital
for July 1947 did not contain the name of a nurse, or anyone
else, named Wilson.(FN-83) The only female captain assigned to
the Roswell AAF Hospital in July 1947 was the Chief Nurse Capt.
Joyce Goddard.(FN-84) Goddard, who was 5=926" tall, was
transferred from Roswell AAF to Korea on August 21, 1947.(FN-85)

Therefore, according to Dennis=92 recollection of events, this
review of the morning reports indicated that there were two
missing nurses, not one - personnel records of individuals
assigned to the Roswell AAF/Walker AFB hospital indicated that
Dennis=92 recollections of events were apparently inaccurate.

Examination of the August 1947 morning reports did not list a
nurse named Wilson, but they did list a nurse named
Slattery.(FN-86) Captain Lucille C. Slattery, who retired as a
Lieutenant Colonel and is now deceased, was reassigned from Ft.
Goerge Wright, Washington, to Roswell AAF on August 7,
1947.(FN-87)

Slattery replaced Goddard as the Chief Nurse and was the only
female captain assigned to the Roswell AAF hospital. Interviews
of persons with longtime professional and personal associations
with Slattery, revealed that she was known by the unusual
nickname of Slatts.(FN-88) Persons interviewed were Air Force
nurses who retired in the 1960s, each with more than 20 years of
service, including retired Air Force Colonel Ethel
Kovatch-Scott, who served as Chief Nurse of the Air Force from
1963 to 1965.

Consequently, a comprehensive review of the morning reports and
rosters of the Roswell AAF/Walker AFB hospital revealed that
only one nurse named Wilson had ever served there and she did
not arrive until February 1956.(FN-91) Captain Idabelle Miller,
who became Major Idabelle Wilson in 1958 due to marriage and a
promotion, was assigned to the Walker AFB hospital from February
1956 until May 1960.(FN-92)

Upon review of Major Wilson=92s personnel file, it was learned
that she was 5=929" tall and thin. Also, she served as the Head
Nurse of the surgical ward at the Walker AFB hospital.(FN-93)
Therefore, Wilson=92s physical attributes, tall and thin, and
position as Head Nurse matched Dennis=92 recollections of "captain
Wilson." When contacted by Air Force researchers, Wilson stated
she had no recollection of Dennis, of ever having conversations
with him, any of the events he described, or of a nurse that was
missing.(FN-94) She also made it abundantly clear that as an Air
Force officer and medical professional she would not spread a
rumor of a plane crash, as Dennis alleged "Captain Wilson" did
in conversations with him.(FN-95)

Results of Missing Nurse and Pediatrician Research Examination
of the missing nurse and the pediatrician stories, and other
facts established by research, provide a foundation for further
analysis to determine what actual event(s), if any, were
responsible for these claims. Based on information developed, it
appears this witness may be mistaken in some of his statements,
especially regarding the time frame for these events. The
following facts have been established:

a. The only physician who ever relocated to Farmington, N.M.,
following his military service at Roswell AAF/Walker AFB was the
former Chief of Pediatric Services at the Walker AFB hospital,
the former Capt. Frank B. Nordstrom. Further, he did not arrive
at Walker AFB until June 1951, four years after the purported
Roswell Incident, has no recollection of Dennis, the statements
Dennis attributes to him, or of any actual events that explain
his (Dennis=92) account.

b. The only nurse ever assigned to the Roswell AAF hospital
(subsequently renamed Walker AFB) named Wilson, was Idabelle
Wilson. She served at the Walker AFB hospital from 1956 until
1960 and had no recollection of ever meeting or speaking with
Dennis or any of the activities he described.

c. Captain Lucille C. Slattery, the only Air Force nurse ever
known by the distinctive nickname "Slatts," was stationed at the
Roswell AAF hospital. However, she did not arrive until August
7, 1947. This was one month after the Roswell Incident, making
it improbable that Dennis spoke with her in early July 1947.

d. There is no record that a nurse named Naomi Maria Selff, was
ever assigned to Roswell AAF, Walker AFB, or was ever a member
of the U.S. military.

e. All nurses assigned to the Roswell AAF hospital in July 1947
have been accounted for, thereby eliminating any possibility
that there was ever a missing nurse.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                BUFORA WATCH: BUFORA Sacks Editor for Silence

From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:50:10 GMT
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:28:47 -0400
Subject: BUFORA WATCH: BUFORA Sacks Editor for Silence


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

BUFORA WATCH: BUFORA Sacks Editor for Silence

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

Over the past 18 months we have presented the ongoing story of
how a once highly respected and objective UFO Research
organisation has declined into a shadow of its former self.

In that time, most of the active members of BUFORA have
resigned, disgusted with the behaviour of the management. Two
years ago BUFORA had a growing membership of over 1000 across
the UK and abroad. Unfortunately, two thirds of the membership
have left the Association, leaving it financially threadbare and
impotent in completing objective research and investigation -
activities that the Association should be all about.

Now, BUFORA are following the path of popularist ufology, doing
anything to attract gullible new members.

In the latest turn of events, the BUFORA Council have
effectively sacked their magazine editor, Robert Moore, to stop
him publishing a controversial editorial denouncing the
Association for its support of Max Burns and his 'research' of
the Sheffield UFO Crash - a crash that never was.

We now publish his editorial that BUFORA management tried to
stop you from seeing in full along with the letter Robert
received from Chairman Steve Gamble.

The editorial speaks volumes of how BUFORA is managed...

---------------------------------------------------------------
The "Max Burns Lecture Controversy".
---------------------------------------------------------------

Most readers will be aware of the so-called March 24th 1997
Howden Moors event (termed elsewhere "The Sheffield Incident").
Issues "5", "6" & "7" of the BUFORA BULLETIN recounted the
detailed investigation into this occurrence conducted by
long-term BUFORA member and Accredited Investigator Dr. David
Clarke.

Also equally prominent over the past few years (and much more
widely promoted throughout the UFO community) have been the
findings of British UFO researcher Max Burns in relation to this
incident; in particular his claim that it was instigated by the
UFO-related crash of a Tornado aircraft. On other occasions it
has also been proposed that the Howden Moors event was generated
by the crash of an experimental man-made "flying triangle"....or
even that of an extraterrestrial spacecraft!

However, rather than merely respect the negative verdict arrived
at by others investigating this case - conclusions that are
firmly based on meticulous and objective research - anyone
questioning the validity of Burns' interpretation of the Howden
Moors event have been subjected to severe protracted criticism
(both on the Internet and elsewhere).

As you will have noticed from the lecture programme printed in
last issue's BUFORA BULLETIN, Max Burns has been given an
official BUFORA platform to present his somewhat unique
interpretation of this case. This is despite the fact that a
number of prominent BUFORA council members and other association
officers - namely Gloria Dixon, David Clarke and myself - have
openly been against this. However (despite our wishes) official
BUFORA Lecture Organiser Malcolm Robinson, with little
consultation on his part, invited Burns to present his findings
in a lecture to BUFORA's membership scheduled for the 5th June
1999.

A (very) short time prior to the details of BUFORA's lecture
programme being published, news of the planned Burns'
presentation "leaked out" (translation - was discussed with
other officers of the association such as BUFORA's press
secretary David Clarke)! As a result of this, Malcolm Robinson
sent out an e-mail to various BUFORA officers pointedly
inferring that there was a "mole" active within BUFORA!

Both myself and others found the usage of such extreme
terminology simply incredible! In the 15 years I have been a
member of the association the content and speakers of BUFORA's
London lectures have never been confidential.... at least to my
knowledge!

However, it later turned out that this (so-called) "mole" was
none other than Gloria Dixon, who - like myself and others - was
under the impression that the lecture programme contents was not
a state secret! The fact that details of this forthcoming
lecture had also been posted on the Internet forum UFO UpDates
by Max Burns himself (a site easily accessible to millions
throughout the world) is obviously a fact unworthy of any note.

No moles at work here, obviously.....

At the very least, this "mole" remark does a grave disservice to
Gloria Dixon, who has worked tirelessly for four years as the
association's Director Of Investigations (often under very
difficult conditions).

Whilst none of us are against "freedom of speech" (despite
inferences from some parties that those against BUFORA providing
an official platform for Burns' were comparable to fascists or
Stalin-era commissars for adopting this stance), we do feel the
association as a whole should reflect the values and ethos of
the NIC.

Sadly, both myself and others feel that much of the current
lecture programme falls short of this. Why are there seemingly
two Ufology's being presented within BUFORA; i.e the objective,
sober and logical approach of the NIC and the "populist"
approach, as embodied by the lecture programme?


I have always believed it was BUFORA's aim to bridge the gap
between these two extremes. Instead, it seems to me that we are
encouraging those very same negative, stupid and ill-informed
attitudes. Therefore, due to this situation, Gloria Dixon
(BUFORA's director of investigations), David Clarke (Press
Officer) and myself (BUFORA BULLETIN editor) feel that we have
no other option than to resign from the association. While we
are sorry to leave, we feel we have to make a stand on this
issue.

To do otherwise would be to betray the principles that we
brought to BUFORA.

Therefore, due to this situation, Gloria Dixon (Director Of
Investigations), David Clarke (Press Officer) and myself (BUFORA
BULLETIN editor) feel that we have no other option than to
resign from the association. While we are sorry to leave, we
feel we have to make a stand on this issue.

No, we are not "fascists", "moles", "the Andy Robert's clique",
"government agents" or any of the other myriad titles given to
us by certain individuals in relation to this matter. We are
merely committed Ufologists who feel that this situation forces
us to stand up and be counted, for us to show our active support
for the rationalist Ufology that has made BUFORA a major force
for good within ufology for so long.

Unfortunately, there are many within the British UFO community
who want this subject to remain in a conceptual stone age....and
will inflict severe verbal punishment, abuse and other penalties
on those who dare to think otherwise!

We are sickened with the ideological, hectoring
"ETH-true-believers-always-knows-best" attitude of certain
members of the British UFO community.

We feel the presentation of this lecture on a BUFORA platform is
effectively "spitting in the face" of the impressive and
competent investigation conducted by David Clarke and Martin
Jeffrey. In regards to the latter, Martin Jeffrey is both
sympathetic to the ETH and was a even a former supporter of
Burns' interpretation of the Howden Moor event!

A fact that speaks volumes for the evidential basis of the
so-called Sheffield whatever-it-was "crash"!

- Farewell -

Sadly - at least for me! - this is will be the last issue of the
BULLETIN composed under my editorship. Given my views on the
"Sheffield Incident", I feel I have no option other than to show
my solidarity with David Clarke and Gloria Dixon (major
contributors of this BULLETIN over the past few months - as even
this issue will testify!).

Furthermore - on a less controversial note - I have also been
finding it difficult to keep up with the demanding publication
schedule over the past months; a schedule which leaves me very
little time other than to work on the BULLETIN. In the long
term, it has proved hard for me to meet it's demanding
publication-deadline schedules.

However, I have taken steps to ensure that the BUFORA BULLETIN
will enjoy continued support from a active and prolific BUFORA
editorial team. What they will make of this BULLETIN I will
leave in their hands....

I hope that - at least some of you - have enjoyed the various
editions I have produced over the past year.

I wish to formally thank all those who contributed information
and articles during the term of my editorship; especially Chris
Allan, Malcolm Chamberlin, David Clarke, Richard Conway, Gloria
Dixon, Tony Eccles, John Heptonstall, Jimme Holman, Martin
Manwaring, Anthony North, Elsie Oakensen, Bob Pratt and Jenny
Randles.

And also a "thank you" to all those who sent in letters
responding to the contents of this journal.


---------------------------------------------------
The Steve (I don't) Gamble Letter
---------------------------------------------------

Hello Robert,

Thanks for your message regarding the June Bulletin.

From your message, it appears that the printing out is around
half to two-thirds done, but Arnold is unlikely to receive it
before the end of the week, then he will be away for several
days. To minimise delay, Arnold will run with the issue 11 I
have sent him which he has already received, in the hope that he
is able to post it before he goes away.

Don't print out any more of what you have done. Probably the
best way forward is for you to let me have what you have done
and I will incorporate as much of that as possible into issue 12
and credit both of us as joint editors of that edition.

Sorry to have to bump your issue of the Bulletin, but it is a
question of practicality. We are a week behind the posting
schedule already, this weekend would bring it to two and if
Arnold was not able to do anything for a week that would make us
three weeks behind on a six week schedule. The whole system only
works if we are able to have the Bulletin hit the doormats at
regular intervals. Your work on Bulletin 11 and on the Bulletin
over the last year is appreciated and I do feel bad about having
to bump your issue 11.

I know at the moment you are unhappy with BUFORA, but I hope
that will improve with time. I certainly hope that you will
continue to play a role in the research and investigation
sections. John Spencer remarked at the last Research meeting on
the good work you had done on the BOLIDE project and that he
hoped you would continue after you gave up the Bulletin.

Regards,

Steve

---

Robert had in fact printed and completed issue 11 of the
Bulletin before receiving the above spineless email. In our view
this is not how you treat people who work hard in their spare
time to keep to punishing magazine deadlines. But it has
happened so many times. Council are now very good at momentarily
silencing people's opinions and stabbing them in the back at the
same time.

Now Robert will have nothing to do with BUFORA - along with
majority of researchers in the UK.

We suggest you do the same...

BUFORA Watch

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

---------





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Joel Carpenter <ufx@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:00:01 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:31:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 19:31:28 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 99 11:49:54 PDT

>Actually you can find another case in the Arnold article already
>cited, pp. 27-8, of the Proceedings of the First International
>UFO Congress.It precedes Arnold's own remarks quoted here
>earlier, but snipped this time.

>I find it highly unlikely that Boeing would fly one of its test
>planes over Mexico, but that's what Arnold relates. I also find
>it highly unlikely that Boeing had a test (or any other) plane
>capable of 1500 mph and 67,000 feet altitude, but, again, that's
>the way Arnold has it. The last time I looked, Boeing was in the
>business of building big, slow passenger planes.

>Does anyone know if they ever did any high-speed design test
>planes for the military? I know they did the B-47 and the B-52,
>but after that they went commercial.

Dennis-

Boeing's only supersonic projects were a surface-to-air guided
missile called GAPA, first flown Jan. '46:

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/boeing/gapa.html

and its descendent, BOMARC:

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/boeing/bomarc.html

I think GAPA had been revealed to the public by 1947, hence the
comments by Arnold's buddies that the objects he saw were some
kind of guided missiles. Boeing had a test facility at Moses
Lake, so there may have been some basis for the concept.

- J Carpenter





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                Greer Joins The Prophets Conference Visiting

From: prophets@maui.net
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:53:04 -1000
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:34:56 -0400
Subject: Greer Joins The Prophets Conference Visiting


DR. STEVEN M. GREER, CSETI founder and International Director,
joins THE PROPHETS CONFERENCE ~ PORT TOWNSEND, WA, August 27-29

Dr. Greer is widely regarded as the world's foremost authority
on the subject of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), and is
the founder and international director of the Center for the
Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI). A lifetime
member of Alpha Omega Alpha, the nation's most prestigious
medical honor society, Dr. Greer is an emergency physician and
former chairman of the department of emergency medicine at
Caldwell Memorial Hospital in North Carolina.

Dr. Greer, as director of CSETI, has led research teams
throughout the world investigating the existence of ETI, and on
several occasions has successfully established preliminary
contact and communication with extraterrestrial spacecraft at
close range. He has met with and provided briefings for senior
members of government, military and intelligence operations in
the United States and around the world, including senior CIA
officials, Joint Chiefs of Staff, White House staff, senior
members of Congress and congressional committees, senior United
Nations leadership and diplomats, senior military officials in
the United Kingdom and Europe, and cabinet-level staff members
of the Japanese government, among others.

Dr. Greer has been seen and heard by millions world-wide on
shows such as the Larry King Show, CBS, the BBC, NTV in Japan,
"Unsolved Mysteries", "Sightings" and "Encounters" TV programs
in the U.S., the Art Bell radio show, and dozens of others TV
and Radio programs.

He has addressed tens of thousands of people live at conferences
and lectures around the world, including The Prophets Conference
~ Phoenix, the international convention for MENSA, the high IQ
group, the Institute of Noetic Science Board of Directors, and
the Sierra Club.

Regarded as the most inspirational, knowledgeable, visionary and
charismatic speaker on the ETI/UFO subject, Dr. Greer routinely
receives standing ovations and is uniformly greeted with respect
and enthusiasm by his audiences. He brings a unique combination
of scientific knowledge, credibility, vision, humor and
inspiration to his lectures. Dr. Greer relies on first hand
knowledge of extraterrestrial activity world wide, and has
direct sources for information regarding covert operations
dealing with the subject.

Supporters of his work are as diverse as Apollo astronaut Dr. Ed
Mitchell, who walked on the moon in Apollo 14, to benefactor and
philanthropist Laurance Rockefeller, to former British Ministry
of Defense Head and five star admiral Lord Hill-Norton, to the
late folk legend Burl Ives.

The scope of Dr. Greer's knowledge and experience permits him to
address a virtually limitless diversity of audiences. He is able
to relate the ETI subject to political and national security
issues, consciousness studies, space exploration, the
environment, religion and spirituality, world peace and
disarmament issues, global transformation, new sciences, free
energy, studies regarding our future and many other areas.


Dr. Greer at The Prophets Conference ~ Port Townsend

This will be Dr. Greer�s second presentation at a Prophets
Conference. This time he will be investigating and exploring
�The UFO: Anomaly, Reality, Implications� along with an
unprecedented panel of leaders in the field made up of Dr. Edgar
Mitchell, Joe Firmage, Dr. John Mack, Joan Phillips Ocean, and
Dr. Robert Anton Wilson.  Dr. Greer will also present an
individual workshop, as well as participate with Gregg Braden,
Joan Phillips Ocean, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Ilona Selke, and James
Twyman on a powerful panel entitled �Evoking the Numinous: A
Path of Revelation, Evolution, Awakening.�



The Prophets Conference Information is Available for You at:
http://www.greatmystery.org/prophets.html

You may request The Prophets Conference Brochure by calling toll-free
1-888-777-5981.

Dr. Steven Greer Information http://www.cseti.org/

Thank you for forwarding this information to your lists.
Questions, unsubscribe, subscribe, inquiries, comments, issues?
Send mail to Cody@greatmystery.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

              Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:48:46 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:14:37 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell


>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:27:28 -0700
>From: Kal K. Korff <KalKorff@KalKorff.com>
>To: Updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell Story


>Dear List,

>Following on the heels of Professor Charles Moore's thorough
>refutation and disproving of David Rudiak's attempts to deny
>that Project Mogul is THE explanation for Roswell, I am afraid I
>have some more "bad news" for those who still emotionally cling
>to an "ET explanation" for Roswell, despite the existence of no
>hard, credible evidence to support this hypothesis.

>At any rate, I have received several requests concerning former
>Roswell mortician Glenn Dennis' story, and especially about a
>new Roswell expose that is coming out, exposing various claims
>by David Rudiak, Frank Kaufmann, Corso, Don Schmitt, etc.

>While I do not know everything that is in this expose as of yet,
>and don't even have a completed copy, here is some text from the
>Glenn Dennis portion. This information, as far as I am aware,
>has been outright ignored by mainstream UFOlogy and certainly
>CUFOS, the Center for UFO Studies.

>The information, by any reasonable criteria, is persuasive, and
>those who still endorse Glenn Dennis now have the burden of
>refuting it.

>I should note that to the best of my knowledge, and much to his
>credit, Kevin Randle has withdrawn his endorsement of Glenn
>Dennis. Perhaps he will do the same for Frank Kaufmann when that
>information comes out shortly as well.

>This information is from a USAF report that as far as I know,
>HAS NEVER BEEN REVIEWED OR COMMENTED ON, at least this portion
>of it, on ANY of the main internet UFO-related web sites or
>publications.

>If anyone knows anything different, please let me know. Either
>this fell through the cracks, per se, or the UFO field chose to
>ignore it, for whatever reasons. Perhaps it did not, and maybe I
>am just unaware that is has been addressed.

The collapse of the Glenn Dennis tale has been discussed in
various arenas, articles and books since 1997. Karl Pflock
published an "open letter" to Dennis. In the summer of 1997, my
book, THE RANDLE REPORT commented at length on Glenn Dennis and
why his tale of the missing nurse was not to be believed. Vic
Golubic of Phoenix had done the lion's share of the research and
provided the information to all of those who were interested in
it. Golubic's comment to me, that when he confronted Dennis with
the information that Naomi Self (the other spelling Dennis had
provided) could not be found in _any_ military record, and that
Dennis then said he hadn't provided the correct name, told me
the story was a hoax. I published that as quickly as I could.

Let me add a personal note here. Back in 1991 or 1992, as we
were looking for Robert Slusher, I had a conversation with
Dennis. He was angry because we had failed to find his nurse. He
pointed out that he had broken the confidence and supplied the
right name, Naomi Self. I mentioned that it was difficult
tracking people from 1947 and that many people had the same
name. I mentioned that I had spoken to four or five men named
Robert Slusher who had _not_ been in Roswell. Dennis said, oh, I
know him and provided the right location.

The point here, however, is that Dennis was insisting that he
had given us the right name for his nurse. He insisted that we
should be able to find her. When we all, that is, Golubic, me,
and others, pointed out that there was no evidence that the
woman he was describing never walked the face of the planet, he
changed the name. That meant the five or six years of work that
had gone into attempting to locate her was for nothing. It meant
that we had to begin again. It meant that everything we knew
about her could be wrong so that we had no way of attempting to
learn more. To me, when the witness retreated in that fashion,
it was the last stone.

The point, however, is that there is no new evidence here. We
already have had it and it has been circulated throughout the
UFO community. We certainly own Golubic kudos for his long and
tiring search. We owe them to others who provided information
about the missing nurse.

And, for those who don't think my opinion on this, expressed in
my book, hasn't cost me, ask yourselves why I wasn't invited to
speak at the International UFO Museum? They bring in such
notables as Wendelle Stevens and Don Schmitt.

>Can anyone cite a single reference on the web where this
>information was addressed?

>It is my hope that CUFOS will now publish a retraction of their
>endorsements of Glenn Dennis' testimony, as well as other
>Roswell "witnesses" that they have promoted over the years, at
>the expense of the truth. I also hope that other pro-ET Roswell
>authors will also RETRACT their endorsements with just as much
>zeal and energy as they originally promoted them.

But, the Dennis information is out there for all to read. I
don't know why CUFOS hasn't published anything about it, but I
suspect that it is because no one has written an article about
it for them. And, I suspect they feel, as do I, that the
information is already out there for those who want it.

KRandle
www.randlereport.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                      Re: What Have We Really Learned?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:45:15 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:24:44 -0400
Subject: Re: What Have We Really Learned?


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: What Have We Really Learned?
>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 99 09:30:39 PDT

>>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Ufology: What have we really learned?
>>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:58:06 PDT

>Patient and gentle listfolk:

>>"Yes sir," I said. "No, I will not be throwing any parties. For
>>one thing, what have we -as a UFO community- accomplished in the
>>last 50-years? In the last 20-years, I have watched ufology take
>>a step backwards almost every year."

>Ufology has many problems.  One of them is the sort of
>simplistic, chest-beating polemic with which Jerry Black has
>decided, yet again, to bless us.  Fortunately, for all its
>faults ufology -- unlike, say, its critics --has a long,
>honorable tradition of self-criticism. Unfortunately, the sort
>we encounter here tells us more about Black than about the
>field.  His characteristically personality-centered approach is
>singularly unhelpful.

>>"Our self-proclaimed 'leaders of ufology' have let the whole UFO
>>community down. They seem more concerned with writing books, "I
>>told the reporter," and staying in the public eye than they are
>>with finding out the answers to the UFO phenomenon.

>Let's have some specific names here, and even before that, this:
>Exactly who have proclaimed themselves "leaders of ufology"?
>Names and quotes, please.

>In my experience, all kinds of people write books on UFOs, for
>all kinds of motives.  Most, I have no doubt, are sincere and
>well meaning, even if many of their books are not very good.
>One can criticize the failings of these works without slandering
>their authors, unless one believes, as apparently Black does,
>that ufology's problems can be solved if we focus on the
>personalities (or at least what we imagine to be the
>personalities) of those with whom we disagree.

>>"And these are the people who have been entrusted with keeping
>>the people informed as to what's going on in the UFO community.

>And some of them have done a damned good job of it, and
>virtually none have received the recognition, appreciation, or
>(for that matter) financial reward they deserve. Some -- such
>as, to cite but one example, the heroic Jenny Randles -- are on
>this very list.

>>"Also," I said to the reporter, "people have been writing books
>>about their UFO and abduction experiences, and most of these
>>books have gone unchallenged. Nobody has made an objective,
>>scientific attempt to analyze the people who have written these
>>books, it basically seems 'up to the public' to decide whether
>>or not these people are telling the truth.

>Sadly, Black, who seems not to have read many of the "objective,
>scientific attempts" to analyze UFO cases, believes that
>"objective, scientific attempts" really should be devoted to the
>analysis of personalities and motivations of UFO researchers.  A
>bizarre reading of what ufology is about, and an invitation for
>the field to collapse into navel-gazing irrelevance. Ufology, at
>least to most of us, is not the study of ufologists.

<snip>


Hi,

I have been following this debate with interest. Thank you,
Jerry Clark, for the kind words, but what was more important
were your cogent responses to what, in general, are the
criticisms. To a degree I can empathise with these. This does
not make them correct, of course.

For a start Jerry Black seems to be confusing Andy Collins with
Colin Andrews. Given the names, an easy mistake. He presumably
means Colin Andrews (not Andy Collins) regarding pronouncements
on ufology. Colin is a crop circle enthusiast who became
attracted to UFOs that way and left the UK for the US where he
gave various pres conferences in New York (although he comes
back here often). Very few in the UK would describe him as a
ufologist in preference to a crop circle researcher. Some would
call him neither I suspect!

Andy Collins is a different matter. He was a ufologist first and
foremost. In the l970's he investigated many of the UKs biggest
cases (eg the Aveley abduction) and wrote extensive articles on
them - such as via Flying Saucer Review for the time when under
Charles Bowen it did publish worthy material. Andy is still
interested in ufology and I talk to him now and then but he got
sidetracked into a new field - questing - thanks to a UFO
case. Andy is a superb writer in Stephen King mold with the
twist that the supernatural stories he tells (about magic,
psychic battles and strange lights) are supposed to be true. I
cannot answer for that but I believe Andy is sincere. He has
published some hugely entertaining reads (such as 'The Black
Alchemist') and a book linking UFOs and crop circles with Orgone
energy - possibly where the confusion with his reverse namesake
comes from. But the two men could never be mistaken for one
another in terms of appearance, experience as a UFOlogist or
activities. Today almost nobody in the UFO field realises Andy
Collins was one of the leading ufologists in the UK for a
decade. He is now almost exclusively seen as leader of the
questing fraternity - from which, by the way, has sprung the
success of the likes of Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval etc. But I
cannot ever recall Andy Collins making the sort of proclamations
referred to by Jerry Black.

As for ufology making no progress, its a question I often get
asked. My answer is simple. We know far far more about UFOs
today than we did 50 years ago. Often that is through
eliminating things that UFOs are not. Certainly our skill at
discovering IFOs and reducing the total number of 'surviving'
cases is vastly better. Our ability to assess UFO photographs is
much improved from the days when a picture was considered real
until proven otherwise (today we have to be persuaded a case
should be regarded as unsolved after carefully eliminating all
options). As for the alien contact experience - we have a major
data base of knowledge about this. We know witnesses, for
example, are visually creative, have an early life recall
tendancy and enter altered states at the onset of an experience.
We know of links with temporal lobe epilepsy and chemical
changes in the brain that we did not know before. These sorts of
things have come via research. We may not have the jigsaw puzzle
built and ready to to admire but we have a lot more of the
pieces available to fit in.

It is superficially tempting to think we have gone nowhere for
one reason. The biggest noise in public ufology s made by those
with the least to say. This is because the media and many UFO
enthusiasts (as opposed to ufologists - the two are very
different) prefer simple answers. There are no simple answers in
ufology and all serious researchers know that. They just get on
with quietly investigating, publishing, and building up the
evidence and the theories surrounding the evidence whilst the
media portray UFology as if in a time warp. In the public eye it
may be stagnant but nobody who is actually a part of it can
think this is so. Exciting developments occur on a regular
basis. Sadly you wont find them in the major media or in best
selling books. You will find them in the important UFO
literature (such as that which CUFOS produces) or in the books
not written for commercial exploitation but to present good data
and research. That Jerry Black appears not to be aware that
these things exist is simply a consequence of the fact that you
have to go out and find them, because they do not attract six
figure advances, author PR tours and chat show circus
presentations. But they are out there and if you take the
trouble to look for them you will realise that UFO progress is
alive and well and getting on fine thank you without the media
fanfare.

To pick up on what Jerry Clark said about my writing. My most
recent UFO book was 'Something in the Air' - an investigation
into mid air encounters. It has a lot of first hand
investigation and is certainly none sensational (it actively
avoids any attempt to discuss aliens or imply they are behind
these incidents). I was paid =A31500 (about $ US 2300) to write
this and it was a years work. It got almost zero publicity over
here and has sold 757 copies to date. But it exists and I am
proud of it and I knew all of this would be the outcome before I
wrote it. Having published as many books as I have I am not
stupid enough to think I write them for the money or the
publicity. This book has been published in the US recently (by
Sterling) and they have retitled it 'UFO Danger in the Air' and
given it a terrible cover compared with the excellent British
one. This is due to the need to try to hype to sell, I imagine -
thankfully less evident in the UK. I just smile at the outcome.

You will appreciate that I cannot pay my way on income of the
sort generated by 'Something in the Air' (or the similar advance
for the new book that Dr Dave Clarke, Andy Roberts and I have
just written together reporting a whole series of well
investigated and ultimately solved cases - 'The UFOs that Never
Were'). So I do supplement my income by writing more general
books like 'The Complete Book of UFOs' or 'The Afterlife' (both
of which have done far better - although only in a relative
sense - ie that they earn about 75% of what I would be earning
if I was still a teacher). The largest advance I have ever been
paid for a book is $US 9,000 - as opposed to Nick Pope's $70,000
or Tim Good's $300,000. for recent deals)

As you can see some of us dont write books for fame, glory and
money. I can only speak for myself but I make a determined
effort to write at least one research orientated book in an 18
month spell - knowing that for this I will get paid a pittance
and that it will sell few copies. Even so it is out there to be
read by serious researchers. I write the potboilers, if you
like, because the publishers pay me a little more to do so and
these books subsidise the real research and writing I would
otherwise not get out into the shops without them.

People write UFO books for a host of reasons. But the day I stop
wanting to write about serious UFO topics and using my books as
a vehicle to explore cases and the phenomenon is the day I will
stop writing UFO books at all. In no way would I want just to
churn out rubbish to make money. In fact, last year I turned
down the offer to co-author a book with a number one best
selling Gulf War hero (an RAF pilot captured by the Iraquis). He
wanted me to do a UFO book with him because his publisher wanted
such a book and he knew nothing about the subject. Huge sums
were on offer (I could probably have retired). His track record
was such that I was almost guaranteed a hit book like none other
in my 20 years as a full time writer. I said no. Why? Because I
could not write what I considered an honourable book. I would
have had to sacrifice some principles to do it. My brother
frankly thought I was nuts. This is the first time I have
mentioned the decision to ufology and I bet many will also now
think I was nuts. Quite possibly this book will appear with some
other UFOlogist as co -author who saw it as an opportunity - as
no doubt it was. But I am - and always will be - a UFOlogist
first and a writer second. Once I realised that fact then there
was no choice here.

Please dont think I am saying this to show how wonderful I am
and how my shining principles are so much better than yours. It
was a decision I made - thats all - and in many ways I suspect I
was a fool. My point is only that when making decisions like
this some of us - and I am absolutely sure I am far from alone
in doing this - put ufology ahead of other considerations such
as fame and fortune.Honest endeavour ufology does exist and I am
proud to be part of it.

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:21:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:50:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 23:40:42 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy >dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>From: David Rudiak >DRudiak@aol.com>
>>Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:31:07 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>>From: Dennis Stacy >dstacy@texas.net>
>>>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:42:48 -0500
>>>Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:07:27 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes>

<snip>

>David,

>I never said that I could make any judgments or claims about
>Arnold's alleged film, having never, as you quite rightly say,
>seen it. Has anyone else?

>My point was simply to raise it as an issue in regards to
>Arnold's overall reliability. He made a claim to having seen
>nine, disc-shaped objects over Mt. Rainier. Five weeks later he
>claimed to have encountered another large flight of UFOs. In
>1952 he claimed to have filmed two UFOs, one of which was
>transparent and led him to conclude that UFOs were living
>organisms. Over the next few years he reported another three or
>four sightings.


Dennis,

You suggest that his reliability with respect to later sightings
is an indicator of his reliability during his first sighting.

This is not necessarily true. I have noticed that witnesses
sometimes become less reliable in the sense that once they have
been "radicalized" by the discovery that there really is
something strange "out there" they become more likely to believe
that any following sighting they can't explain might be related
to the first, i.e., another saucer.

Oddly enough, this does not necessaily apply to a witness'
evaluation of OTHER PEOPLE'S sightings. In other words a first
time witness might be skeptical of reports by other people,
especially if they differ from his/her own, while becoming more
receptive to believing his own successive sightings are real. In
a few situations the witness becomes willing to believe almost
anything in the sky that is not immediately recognizable (e.g.,
distant lights) is a :"UFO."

There is no indication that Arnold went that "wild".
Nevertheless, your tacit assumption that Arnold's credibility in
sightings _after_ his first are an indication of how accurate
his observations would have been during the first sighting
should be re-evaluated...and perhaps discarded.

It is my opinion that Arnold was likely to be _more_ credible
during his first sighting since he didn't know "what he was
looking for."

>I frankly don't care whether his captured images are good or
>not. I simply want to know whether something he claimed (the
>film) can be veriified or not. Something you and Maccabee don't
>seem the least bit interested in.

Dumb remark. Obviously we would be interested. I don't know of
anyone who has seen Arnold's film. Do you?

As for the impact of his film on the credibility of the first
sighting, I have already stated my opinion above.

<snip>

>I simply asked -- and still ask -- what, if anything, the
>historical (or contemporary) UFO literature had to say about
>same. As far as you and Maccabee are concerned, you've already
>answered my questions. You aren't the least bit interested in
>Arnold's other claims, as long as your mathematical analyzes of
>his first sighting (whatever that represents) holds up in court.

As I said above, what happened _after_ his first sighting is not
necessarily an indicator of his credibility _during_ his first
sighting.

<snip>

>But, NO000, we tried to compile a reasonable, responsible
>account/history of UFOs over the last half-century, and this is
>the thanks we get?  Try a copy, David, you might like it. Ditto,
>Bruce. A dollar off for my autograph, and that goes for all you
>other fruitcakes out there who don't by any of my publications.
>Allow me this one rant: As a whole, ufologists are the biggest
>cheapskates and tightwads on the planet. There, I feel much
>better!

If ufologists were richer...they might be more generous.

>>>Aside from Arnold, the book contains articles by Jenny Randles,
>>>Jerome Clark, Jacques Vallee, Bill Chalker, Ray Fowler, Chris
>>>Rutkowski, Robert Durant, David Perkins, Col. Hector
>>>Quintanilla, Michael Swords, Karl Pflock, James Moseley, Jan
>>>Aldrich, Vicente-Juan Ballester Omos and others.

>>I can see that some of us aren't on your social list.  Sniffle.


>Yes, but many of us are. Maybe if you had been nicer...and I had
>known you way back when.

At least we now know who bought the book!





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:22:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:17:04 -0400
Subject: Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon


>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:46:53 -0700
>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

>Due to the 13 Echelon Sattelites covering all sectors of the
>globe, no electronic communications can evade monitoring.


Hi Josh,

How do you know there are 13 of these satellites and what other
specific information do you have that has not been reported in
the press?


            __________________________________________
           /    Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes    \
                      Henny van der Pluijm
                      hvdp@worldonline.nl

                       Technology Pages
                http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                          Max Burns BUFORA Lecture

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:46:21 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:59:54 -0400
Subject: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture


Hi All,

Max Burns gave his much talked about lecture on Saturday (5th
June). The talk was detailed and was constructive, the talk was
well received, and debated afterwards.

Thanks to Malcolm for this one.....

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:21:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:58:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:18:12 -0400
>From: James Easton >pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

>Any proposition that the American White Pelican was responsible
>for Arnold's reported sighting, must be able to substantiate
>that these birds are known to fly relatively fast and at high
>altitude.

>The ideal person to offer an informed opinion would be a pilot
>who has encountered pelicans in flight and Mike Havener is a
>glider pilot who wrote an article on his experiences.

>He told me, "The birds I was soaring with were at about 3000 -
>4000 feet MSL. We were flying in a continuous band of lift, so
>we were continually climbing. I have seen pelicans at higher
>altitudes when the lift is really good (maybe 6000 feet MSL)".

>"The glider I was flying has a 38 mph stall speed... as a matter
>of fact, I was flying at 52 mph between thermals, and these
>birds were staying with me".

>So, it seems whilst still not quite supersonic, pelicans are no
>slouches and under ideal flying conditions, could show a
>surprising turn of wing.

>Mike added, "Since writing the article, I have received several
>letters from other glider pilots who have shared the same
>experience. Though none of them mentioned their flight profiles,
>these reports have come from various locations around the
>world". [End]


>There's more evidence than this, however, that covers the gist
>of it.

>Don't forget, these are no ordinary birds, they have a massive,
>up to 10ft wingspan, all white, except for the black wing tips.

<snip>

The important part of which is that birds can go to 14,000 ft
when migrating. In his thousands of hours of flying Arnold may
not have seen pelicans....and, in fact, we don't know what the
odds of seeing pelicans near Mt. Rainier would be. We don't
know what the probability would be that they would be flying
south. So we must ASSUME pelicans can fly at about 9,000 ft at
about 50 mph in order to put them in the ballpark for agreeing
with Arnold's observation.

In my previously posted analysis I assume pelican height of
6,000 ft, which was the largest altitude that had been mentioned
up to that time (see above). If the pelicans were at about 9,000
ft or at

Arnold's altitude. the depression angle could be small or
zero, so the calculations of depression angle would be moot
under these circumstances. The calculation of the horizontal
spacing between the pelicans and Arnold would not be mooted,
however. Arnold flying east would still overtake the pelicans
if he flew in a straight line.


>British researcher and author, Peter Brookesmith, asked for an
>opinion on the results of my investigations and Kottmeyer wrote:

<snip>

>The people asking we take Arnold's testimony of the distances at
>face value naughtily ignore the reasons I gave why we can't. If
>real, the objects had to be huge and visible to scores of
>people. They also had to be supersonic and generating sonic
>booms that thousands should have heard.

There weren't scores of people in the wooded area around Rainier
and those that were there on the ground very likely had severely
restricted fields of view because of mountains and trees. The
lack of sonic booms, etc., seems to be common for UFO reports.
We are now working on methods of reducing the shock due to speed
through air (e.,g., Myrabo's "air spike" discussed on this list
in months past)


>The guys arguing about
>the trigonometry keep putting the birds and the planes on
>perpendicular paths, but overlook that Arnold explicitly turned
>the plane to get a better look out the side window. The paths
>were parallel. Once you put that straight, the angular sizes and >
>velocity implicit in Arnold's report can fit coherently those of
>a swan. I'm not sure if the speed or size of pelicans would
>materially change the math, but if the flight characteristics
>are a valid signature I wouldn't sweat such details.

Wouldn't sweat such details as speed or size?

An obvious indication of a failure to understand the dynamics of
the situation. Arnold says he turned his plane, opened the
window to avoid reflections. It is logical to assume that it was
the left window he opened so he was flying southward parallel to
the objects (why turn to the left and fly northward away from
them?)

Brookesmith says in the above, that "guys arguing trigonometry
keep putting birds and the planes on perpendicular paths, but
overlook the fact that Arnold explicitly turned the plance to
get a better look out the window. The paths were parallel."

Ignore? Not at all. In fact, this is one of the strongest
arguments AGAINST anything in the air that would be moving at
Arnold's speed or lower. Once he was flying in the same
direction as the objects he could tell within a few seconds
whether he was gaining on them, they were moving away from him,
or if there was no difference in speed. Since Arnold was flying
at least twice as fast as the birds it would only take matter of
seconds for him to realize they were flying more slowly than he
(note proper use of language; I did not write "slower than
him").

>Although that's another matter and this is already too long, one
>question which needs to be resolved is how far, maximum, could
>any bright, reflective object of approx. 10ft by 5ft, be visible
>from the air?

This is, of course, an important point. Related to it is whether
or not the tilting of the wings could result in the type of
bright flash that Arnold compared with reflection of the sun off
metal. A bright reflection from metal can be seen for tens of
miles (I have seen same myself...sunlight reflected off a metal
roof, visible as a bright spot from an aircraft 10 miles away).
Through the rather clear atmosphere about 5,000 ft a bright
solar reflection might be noticeable against the sky for several
tens of miles, depending upon the size of the reflector.

Consider that the brightness of the solar disc is at least
10,000 times brighter than the clear blue sky. That means that
one 1/10000 of the area of the solar disk would be roughly equal
to the sky brightness. A flat specular reflector with an angular
size as seen by the observer of 1/100 the angular size of the
sun (because area is proportional to the square of the diameter
or radius), when oriented properly to reflect the sun toward the
observer, would barely be visible because the sun's color is
different from that of the sky. Looking at a flat mirror with an
angular size smaller than the sun's disc is like looking at a
piece of the sun, but from a different angle then the direction
to the sun (specifically, looking in the direction to the
reflector). Since the sun's disc is about 8 milliradians in size
(about 1/2 degree), a mirror 8/100 = 0.08 mr will be about as
bright as the sky itself. This would be too small for the naked
eye to resolve and would appear merely as a point of light in
the blue sky. If the background sky were whitish it might not
be seen at all. Consider that a 1 m sized mirror at 1 km has an
angular size of 1/1000 radian or 1 mr (mirror surface
perpendicular) to the line of sight). A 1 m sized surface at 10
km (6 mi) or 10 m at 100 km (60 mi) would have an angle or 0.1
mr. Thus to see sunlight reflected over a large distances we
would expect good reflective surfaces on the order of 5 - 10 m
in size.

How about birds? Obviously difficult to model. They are diffuse
reflectors. Hence they introduce divergence into the light which
hits them (whereas a flat mirror merely redirects the light; a
curved metallic surface introduces curvature and divergence
while redirecting the light).

One could attempt a reasonably complex calculation of the
visibility of birds agains the smy, but it probably would be
only a crude approximation to the actual situation since we
don't know what "Color" the sky was that he might have seen the
birds silhouetted against (something between "blue" and
"white"). Furthermore, since the would be moving they would be
more detectable to the eye than stationary objects used in the
calculation.

The simplest solution to this problem is simply to assert that
they could be detected at a distance of a couple miles even
though, if at Arnold's altitude, he could not see them
broadside, i.e., he wouldn't see the complete wing-body span
even if they did tilt slightly. He would mostly see the
effective "vertical thickness" or height of the birds (looking
at them "edge on" if they were at his altitude).

>We could put it this way; supposing that any pilot encountered a
>small formation of migrating AWPs at high altitude, had never
>seen this unusual sight before and as such, didn't recognise
>these as birds at all.>

>What would he be likely to observe in perfect conditions?

>Say..a formation of reflective, bright objects, flying in a
>diagonal echelon, with maybe some of the 'objects' slightly
>ahead of the others. They would occasionally 'flutter' and
>'sail' as they flapped and then glided. From distance, it would
>look something like a 'kite's tail' (he might even describe
>their motion in flight as 'bobbing', skimming, or looking
>something like a stone skipping across water :) ).

>If this was also in a post-war era of aviation development,
>especially military and when it would be no real surprise to see
>new airplanes, especially ones which were still 'secret', would
>the pilot ever realise, or would anyone suggest, that he had
>seen a formation of AWPs?


>If this did apply to Kenneth Arnold, how could he not realise
>these were birds and believe the 'objects' were much further
>distant and considerably faster than they truly were.

>It would have to be that there was evidence these could not have
>been birds, or his overall perception was somehow in error.>

BIG problem: as the dynamic path reconstruction in my last
message showed, Arnold would be likely to get close enough to
them to notice "small" things like the wings flapping, etc.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                      Re: What Have We Really Learned?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:01:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:04:11 -0400
Subject: Re: What Have We Really Learned?


>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Ufology: What have we really learned?
>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:58:06 PDT

>50th Anniversary Of Ufology:
>What Have We Really Learned
>by Jerry Black

>To all interested parties;

>Back in 1997, during the first week in June, I had received a
>call from a UPI reporter that had contacted Mr. Kenny Young.
>Evidently, Young had given him my name for a telephone
>interview, as the reporter wanted my opinion about the 50th
>anniversary of the modern era of UFOs.

> Snip... but with respect

>Again we have Stanton Friedman in his latest book with Whitley
>Strieber writing the foreword. Not only does he write this
>segment of Friedman's book, but it is noted very prominently on
>the outside cover of the book, stating: "Foreword by Whitley
>Strieber." I asked Mr. Friedman if he supported the Whitley
>Strieber case, or was this done to help sell the book, by either
>himself or the publisher. There was no response. Regardless,
>when UFO investigators who have been in the business 10 or
>15-years see what they perceive to be one of the self-proclaimed
>leaders in ufology with Whitley Strieber writing a foreword for
>their book, they make the assumption that Mr. Friedman supports
>the Whitley Strieber case. I cannot see how that Stanton
>Friedman, without taking a look at the Whitley Strieber story,
>can support that case.

>Mr. Stanton Friedman, one of our self-proclaimed spokesmen, not
>only supports the hoaxed case of Whitley Strieber, but also
>-because of his loyalty to Bruce Maccabee and what he has said
>about the Gulf Breeze investigations - supports the hoaxed Ed
>Walters/Gulf Breeze scenarios.

> Snip yet again with respect

Dear List Members, this post is not marked with an "S"

Mr. White.... Black, sorry.... I always get those two colors
confused. Anyway, Dear Mr. Sir... I know how you must feel. And
so I would like very much to make it up to you. I, Dr. Jaime
Gesundt, ufologist and Vintner, Clinton supporter and Nixon
advocate, I, the premier researcher in UFOs, will write a
forward to your next book.

Or, if you like, to your next post.  Having my forward on your
front of the back will make whatever you say even more behind
than if my forward were not in front, but in the back.  's OK,
dude..... don't thank me.  It's a pleasure to serve you... like
in that Twighlight Zone piece, "To Serve Man!"  Remember?

Now you too, can be forwarded by a real poisenality. Me!

Gesundt





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

               Spat With Talk Show Host - $60 Million Lawsuit

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:32:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:32:44 -0400
Subject: Spat With Talk Show Host - $60 Million Lawsuit




Source: http://www.sightings.com/ufo3/spat.htm

SIGHTINGS

Spat With Talk Show Host Art Bell Escalates Into $60 Million
Lawsuit

By John Stromnes The Missoulian www.missoulian.com

6-9-99


ST. IGNATIUS - Staring down the business end of a $60 million
lawsuit, UFO skeptic Robert A.M. Stephens lights another
cigarette from a crumpled pack of Checkers and tweaks the screen
of his Macintosh computer to pull up yet another document from
the Internet.

This one names him as the defendant in that lawsuit. It accuses
him of everything from slander to lying about his credentials to
maliciously using the Internet to try and destroy the career of
syndicated radio talk show host Art Bell.

It is Bell who filed the suit against Stephens and another man
last week, focusing national media attention on Stephens and his
five-month-old feud with Bell over UFOlogy and Stephens' own
credentials.

"Stephens participated ... in a national and international
conspiracy designed to impugn Bell and sully his reputation ...
" the lawsuit charges.

The lawsuit was filed not only to collect monetary damages and
to clear Bell's good name, but also "to take a public stance
against the irresponsible and unlawful use of the Internet for
illegal or improper purposes," Bell's Los Angeles lawyer states
on Bell's Web site. Bell's lawyers, Gerard P. Fox and Davidson
M. Pattiz of Fox, Siegler and Spillane LLP, did not return a
phone call this week seeking comment.

Stephens, a 47-year-old artist, railroad model maker and
computer-imaging expert, is staying in a rambling farmhouse two
miles north of St. Ignatius. He shares the house with another
family, but Stephens says he provides the cash flow.

Outside, dogs are barking and a disabled vehicle is parked under
the carport. Weeds are growing thickly in the fields around the
barn.

In a darkened room inside, Stephens is sitting by his computer,
a smallish Power Mac with a 14-inch monitor. He apologizes,
explaining that his computer system's big monitor was "bombed"
in an Internet attack over the weekend by unknown parties. He
suspects the culprits are people who have taken extreme umbrage
at his attempts to debunk self-appointed UFO experts and their
radio talk-show sympathizers during the last five months, he
says.

Meanwhile, his state-of-the-art computer, a Mac 93 400, sits
unused and unplugged at the end of a cluttered table.

Similar problems have plagued his Web site, shady-pines.com,
which for several months lampooned and parodied UFOlogy and
radio talk show host Bell. It is no longer up and running, a
victim, he says, of his feud with Bell.

The whole thing started on Oct. 16, 1998, Stephens says,
knocking another ash off his filter cigarette.

"It started with the Montana UFO," he says.

Some Mission Valley residents may recall the spate of reports of
a UFO seen by numerous witnesses that week in October around the
Mission Valley. Stephens said the reports he heard were of "a
triangle in the sky, with red, blue and green lights, hovering
at about 20,000 feet five miles east of U.S. 93."

"It was here for three weeks. All sorts of people saw it," he
said. Stephens was not among them.

Although he never saw the suspected craft from outer space, he
took it upon himself to report the sightings to various Internet
sites interested in such reports. Within five days, his postings
had attracted the interest of late-night talk show hosts.

Somehow, he let slip that he is associated with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. This gave him instant
credibility on the radio shows, as if he were some kind of
official spokesman. But the shows apparently did not check with
NASA about his supposed association.

Last week a NASA official said Stephens was a volunteer artist
in a program that supplied artwork for the agency during the
beginning of the shuttle program in the 1980s, and he donated
several art works to the program. He does not work for the
agency, has never worked for the agency, and is not an agency
spokesman about UFOs or anything else, the NASA official said.
His access to NASA facilities and tours is the same as that of
other civilians, the spokesman said.

Stephens says now: "I don't work for NASA and I will never work
for NASA." But he hints that he does have NASA support.

"I have a lot of influence in the agency," he says.

Stephens said his main motive in entering the UFO discussions
was to defend NASA against outlandish charges - for example that
the agency was part of a government conspiracy to keep the
existence of space aliens secret from the American public.

Stephens said other outlandish claims were that NASA was hiding
entire planets from the American public and that forces in
Washington, D.C., were secretly planning to bomb Washington,
D.C., itself.

Stephens said he went on the talk shows and used his Internet
expertise to demand evidence from UFOlogists.

His notoriety spread with his accessibility, and he was invited
on Bell's radio program as a telephone guest Dec. 30, supposedly
to debate a UFO expert. Stephens said that in preparation he
assembled a list of some 200 questions to ask the UFO buff. But
he said Bell cut him off after a few minutes, much to Stephens'
displeasure.

After that, the battle between Bell and Stephens gravitated
toward the Internet, with each aspersing the other's
credibility.

Stephens says that on April 1, "I publicly and privately asked
him (Bell) to stop. He refused and said 'a lot better people
than you have tried to take me down.' "

On April 3, Stephens was a guest on another radio show, where
the battle escalated. It is the comments on that show that
prompted Bell to sue.

Here's what the lawsuit alleges Stephens said, according to a
copy of the suit posted on Bell's Internet Web site:

"A. Approximately 20 years ago, Bell had been 'arrested' and
'served time' for 'trafficking' in various aspects of
pornography. B. Bell made pornographic 'videotapes'; and C. The
entire story had been confirmed by 'a consortium - a syndication
of private' investigators, who had located an original article
in the Monterey Herald confirming the story."

None of these allegations are true, the lawsuit says, and making
those statements on a radio program, Stephens slandered and
defamed Bell, and caused him loss of earnings.

For his part, Stephens says he "categorically denies any and all
charges of any kind" alleged in the lawsuit. He said he has yet
to be served an official copy of the suit, so he can't respond
directly to the allegations. In fact, he said, he has not read
past the first page of the version posted on the Internet, and
he has yet to retain a lawyer.

Stephens said he views the lawsuit as frivolous and as an
attempt to intimidate the Internet service providers that
maintain his Web pages, and also as an attempt to muzzle
Stephens.

"These lawsuits are a way to stifle my dissent (from UFOlogy
orthodoxy) and my defense of NASA," he says.

To some extent, it has worked, he acknowledged. He said his Web
page has been pulled from the Internet by its service provider,
apparently because of concern about the lawsuit.

He says he has recently received 374 e-mail death threats from
UFO cultists, probably because of his feud with Bell.

"I take that seriously," he said. He said he has contacted the
FBI.

As for UFOs, he says he does not believe in them, at least the
way they are presented by the UFO cult - alien abductions,
flying saucers, government conspiracies, and the like.

However something is out there, he says.

"There are anomalous objects in our time-place that defy
description and defy denial," he says mysteriously. He notes
that the millennium is coming.

"I do believe the way things are headed, we are probably going
to know more about (those anomalous objects). But the course
that UFOlogy embraces, that of a cult religion, that is not the
way."

Meanwhile Bell's Web site, www.artbell.com, and other Web pages
associated with Bell, continue to vilify Stephens.

But Stephens is not defenseless. Tacking away at his little
computer in his upstairs room, chain-smoking, Stephens in the
last few days has put up another Web page. It is considerably
tamer than shady-pines.com. It shows photos of him in the
company of a NASA official at a recent NASA launch site tour.

But at the bottom of the page is a parody photo of Bell in
garish costume and dark glasses. Stephens' new site is at*:

http://people.Montana.com/~sti3818/

"If you make fun of the UFO'ers, they go ballistic," Stephens
says, unrepentant. "It's a religion that tolerates no sense of
humor."



*[Forbidden

 You don't have permission to access /~sti3818/ on this server.

 Apache/1.3.6 Server at people.montana.com Port 80

                                             --ebk]



              SIGHTINGS 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:22:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:19:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

>Well, like Clinton, I would need to know what you mean by
>"present." They have of course already presented themselves to
>thousands of abductees and to the legitimate contactees. But
>they've left only meager evidence behind. So perhaps what you
>mean is, will they do so (in August), this time leaving all
>kinds of irrefutable evidence behind? I doubt it; their
>escalation in degree of firmness and abundance of evidence seems
>to be growing only gradually over the years.

Jim

I wasn't making a statement, I was asking what you thought of the
eclipse type designs and your interpretation of them.

>No, I don't know Doug and Dave's address.

Do you really think Doug and Dave were the only one's who
made crop circles?

>I do know that one usually receives only silence or a change
>of subject upon posing the question to skeptics.

I wasn't referring to sceptics in general I was talking about
those that opening admit to making circles.

>So I'll stay tuned for any idea you
>put forth on how it could be feasibly accomplished for a circle
>as large as 57 feet in diameter. It was probably no accident
>that the upper-layer circle of swirled stems did not entirely
>cover the under layer at the circumference -- if they had, the
>lower lower might not have been discovered.

Looking at the diagram it looks as though the crop was flattened
from the centre spiralling out and then back to the middle and
so on. Continue that until all the crop was flattened and you'd
end up with the effect of layering described in the book. As the
crop was packed down and serrated at the edges it's possible it
was done with a roller rather than boards.

>I would not assume that the tests haven't been made by Levingood
>on stems from oil-seed rape crop circles.

Why do you think that is?

>No, I didn't see that. I was referring to certain crop-circle
>reports wherein the stems within a given formation were all bent
>over at the *same* approximate height, like 1" or 2" or 4" above
>the ground, as opposed to the usual 1/4" or so, which trampling
>on it can try to simulate.

Have you got the details of the formation/s where the crop is
all flattened at 4" above the ground?

>I was referring to those hundreds of crop circles over the years that
>have been astounding in their size, complexity, creative design,
>bending-over of the stems with minimal breakage, and other
>features such as braiding.

I agree, the human circle makers can really create some
fantastic designs and effects.

>Their makers were never caught, whereas common sense dictates
>that if humans had done them, a substantial percentage would
>have been caught in the act, and/or have left tell-tale signs
>behind.

Not really, once in the dark your eyes adjust pretty quickly,
particularly when there aren't any light sources around the
affect the pupils. In the dark circle makers are probably
undetectable 200 foot or so into the crop, now given that
Wiltshire is a pretty large county the odds really are in their
favour.

Tony





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                             Re: UK UFO Weekend

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:20:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:28:42 -0400
Subject: Re: UK UFO Weekend


In case you missed last weekend's UK UFO Weekend in the UFO
Forum, and/or enjoy a good conspiracy<g>,  here are some quotes
from the guests, as well as the library where the transcripts
can be found. http://go.compuserve.com/ufo

Nick Pope: "...UFOs are of extreme defence significance..."

Transcript: Experiencers/Contact Library


Tom Cary: "It's hand-sized...but it's the "memory metal" ...
you fold it up and it flows out like water ...
This is INDISPUTABLE proof..."

Transcript: Crashes/Roswell Library


Nick Redfern: "..there are far more covert departments and
agencies in the UK investigating UFOs than the Government would
have us believe.."

Transcript:Conspiracy Library


Matthew Williams: ".. Rudloe Manor...This promises to be an
interesting look at the way the base is secured and the lies
that are put out as fronts for the work that goes on there."

Transcript:Conspiracies Library


http://go.compuserve.com/ufo
http://go.compuserve.com/paranormal





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                 MAGONIA Monthly Supplement No. 16 June 1999

From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:32:07 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:13:32 -0400
Subject: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement No. 16 June 1999


MAGONIA Monthly Supplement (formerly ETH Bulletin)
Interpreting contemporary vision and belief

-------------------------------------------------------
Editor: JOHN HARNEY
No. 16 June 1999
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

EDITORIAL

In last month's editorial I expressed puzzlement at the apparent
logical inconsistency of apparently taking seriously stories of
aliens gliding through walls as well as aliens securely locked
up at US Air Force bases. Even a fantasy world must have some
kind of internal logic, if the reader is to attain the desired
suspension of disbelief while reading about it. My difficulty is
not with the serious study of alleged alien abductions and UFO
crashes, but with the fact that so many well-educated and highly
intelligent folk treat these stories as if they represented a
physical reality - the activities of extraterrestrial beings -
rather than just a social reality.

I also have difficulty, along with a number of other British and
French ufologists, of trying to understand how so many
researchers favour the ETH as the explanation for puzzling UFO
reports, which inevitably leads to distortion of the evidence
and testimony, rather than engaging on unbiased investigations
on a case-by-case basis. This approach has certainly paid
dividends for some British and French investigators.
________________________________________________________________

PREDICTIONS AND CRASHES

Nigel Watson

If anyone predicts anything about UFOs it is almost certain to
be proven wrong. Most predictions about imminent mass landings
and revelations are made by cultists or contactees, but more
often sober groups expect "something to happen" very soon. A
case in point was given by an unnamed spokesman for the British
UFO Society (BUFOS):

"During 1979 there will be a major breakthrough . . . " which
"will make it necessary for us to take the most searching look
inwards so we can reach up to higher wisdom. If UFOs are
extraterrestrial we have to be mentally alert to finding ways
and means of having open traffic."

As far as I know, there was no reaching in, looking up or open
traffic with UFOs in 1979; then again my Ford Capri could well
have taken me on a one-way road to spiritual ignorance and
oblivion.

From the same newspaper source (1) we are told:

"A recent visitor to San Francisco told the Evening Express that
daily papers were carrying stories about an incident which the
MoD and RAF had investigated. This, according to reports,
involved a crash by some vehicle, in the wreckage of which there
were two badly burned corpses, each about 4 feet tall."

BUFOS were asked about this case but they could only refer to
"an incident in Norway in the 1960s" which they thought was an
early space mission with apes, that had gone wrong.

Does anyone know anything else about the corpses found by the
RAF twenty years ago? It did strike me that it could have been a
confabulation of the Berwyn Mountain crash case of January 1974,
but I don't think there was that much interest in the case, in
terms of a crashed spaceship, until the 1990s.

Could this be another smoking gun, or just another garbled
rumour?

Reference
1. Power, Tim. "Watch out for a UFO breakthrough", Evening Express
(Aberdeen), 9 March 1979

LITERARY CRITICISM

Jonathan Downes and Nigel Wright. The Rising of the Moon: The
Devonshire UFO Triangle, Domra Publications, 1999. No price
given

This is an unusual UFO book by any standards. It begins with
Jonathan Downes drowning his sorrows in  whisky and pills, and
ends with him going into psychotherapy. In between there is a
heady brew of Fort, Keel, Holiday, Crowley and Lovecraft mixed
with the authors' own research into unexplained events in
Devonshire.

They show that the outside world can be as wild and insane as
our own minds; UFOs, mystery animals, MIB, poltergeists,
monsters, merfolk and pixies have pranced and paraded all over
Devonshire for many a long year. Wright and Downes's
investigations and research are candid and amusing. In 1997 they
attended the BBC Radio Devon stand at the Devon County Show and,
amongst Spice Girls impersonators and prize bulls, they talked
about UFOs and a friend marched around as a grey alien. Another
friend, Richard Freeman, claims that his worship of a spider-god
caused a plague of these creatures in Yorkshire. And there is
plenty more weird stuff to please a saucer full of hippies.

Given the sensational nature of such topics, and the
circumstances of their research, lots of useful, intriguing and
detailed local reports are compared and contrasted with theories
and cases beyond Devonshire. There are a few odd holes in their
research, though. For example, they refer to the British 1909
airship scare as being "not satisfactorily dealt with
elsewhere". There are quite a few useful articles on this
subject, but this only highlights the fact that ufological work
has to be continually rediscovered, due to a lack of
bibliographic and archive resources. Despite this, the authors
put the phantom airship cases they do find into their proper
social context and highlight the fact that such phenomena are
not seen in isolation.

It is also a surprise to find them demolishing several of the
cases they present earlier in the book, and they certainly have
no love for the circus surrounding Roswell or the ETH. They do
not dismiss the ETH entirely, but they postulate that UFOs and
other Fortean phenomena are caused by energy forms that feed off
human emotions. They call this Odylic Lifeforce Energy which
comes from the Wilhelm Reich school of mystical ufology. Whether
such energy vampires exist is an entertaining idea but the
authors rightly and artfully cop out by saying their book is
"based on personal experience rather than a scientific
treatise". A good read anyway.

Nigel Watson

Sarah Moran. Alien Art: Extraterrestrial Expressions on Earth,
Bramley Books, 1998. =9C12.99

Like one of his beloved sky gods, Erich von Daniken and his
ancient astronaut theories have reappeared on our planet. As
proof, this is a picture book of his greatest hits. We get
glossy pictures of the Nazca Lines, Japanese figurines, Mayan
pyramids, Costa Rica balls and all the usual suspects.

What puzzles me is if half of these sculptures, carvings,
monuments and structures are true remains of alien, or
alien-inspired, work, why didn't they leave something a bit more
convincing than a bunch of rocks pointing at a star, or carvings
of people in funny hats? Sure enough, the construction of many
of these artifacts is often remarkable and impressive but not
beyond the efforts of humanity. Even a dedicated believer
doesn't have to look far to find alternative and more mundane
explanations for these objects.

At first appearances this book is a pleasant and uncritical look
at ancient astronautics. What is more worrying is Moran's
scepticism of Darwinian evolution; the last words of her book
are: "Is it so much harder to contemplate that we may have been
influenced by visitors from the skies, than that we somehow
evolved from an elusive missing link with monkeys? An open mind
is all we need." With open minds like that we could all fall
into a bottomless pit of gullibility. At least monkeys exist in
reality; the space gods or aliens are just a fancy concept.

I don't think science is omnipotent, and there are flaws in
Darwinian theory, and it is refreshing that "establishment
science" is not slavishly venerated and respected. Charles Fort
certainly made it his life's work poking holes and fun at
pompous scientists and their precious dogmas. The only problem
now is that anyone can kick a stone or read a book, and before
you can say "George Adamski" they become an expert who knows
better than qualified scientists. Then again, some qualified
scientists have weirder ideas than a room full of drunken
rabbits. So the point of this argument is that this book is just
an excuse for pretty pictures and vacuous questions that pander
to brainless dolts.

To summarise: A nice picture book for believers who pray on
their knees to von Daniken and swallow his extraterrestrial
ejaculations.

Nigel Watson

________________________________________________________________

LETTERS

Martin Kottmeyer's "Betty Hill's Medical Nightmare" (MMS, No.
12, February 1999) is an absurd bit of speculative overreaching
totally unworthy of him. Unlike many of my colleagues on the
"pro-UFO" side of the fence, I happen to think Marty has given
us some important insights that ufologists would be foolish to
ignore. These are best summed up as, "Be very, very careful in
teasing out and evaluating the testimony of UFO percipients or
alleged percipients. If their experiences were real, never
forget that what witnesses think they see during startling and
strange experiences is "framed" by their life experiences, and
among the most important influences are popular culture and
high-profile current events. Maybe what they saw wasn't quite
like they remember it. Further, if the witnesses weren't
witnesses at all, but hoaxers or dupes instead, then clues to
what inspired the hoax and/or its content are likely to be found
in popular culture, etc." Sound advice.

Taking one of Kottmeyer's most famous suggestions as an example,
suppose Barney Hill did see an alien being with compelling eyes
staring down at him on the night of 19 September 1961 (I happen
to think he did). However, suppose he also saw that Outer Limits
episode featuring "the eyes that speak" just a few days before
Dr Simon hypnotically probed his CE-III experience. Barney's
recollections that day may well have been importantly influenced
by what he'd seen on TV. Thus, if we can't prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Barney didn't see "The Bellero Shield",
we're left with having to suspend judgement on the accuracy of
Barney's description of the "captain", though not necessarily
the experience itself.

Regrettably, Kottmeyer almost invariably does himself and the
value of his thinking a disservice by trying to make his
approach do too much, as in "Medical Nightmare". Without any
evidence - none! - he assumes Betty was consumed by fears of
radioactive bomb-test fallout, inspired by the not so Lucky
Dragon incident, etc., etc., even stating without qualification
that she had an "understandable [radiation] anxiety". (Where did
you come up with this intelligence, Marty? Pray, do tell us.)
Without a shred of supporting evidence or testimony, he links
this presumed anxiety with Betty's compass-needle test of the
car and the mysterious spots (not actually suggested by a
physicist, by the way), Betty's and the "leader"'s discussion of
earthly foods, the nature of the physical exams and biological
sample collection to which she and Barney were subjected, and so
on. Even more tenuously, he suggests the false-teeth episode was
born of bits of nearly 12-year-old wire-service stories of dead
saucer pilots with perfect teeth tucked away in Betty's
subconscious. (At least the Outer Limits episode was broadcast
only days before Barney's recall of the compelling, wrap-around
eyes!) And so on, and on, and on.

In a letter earlier this year, Kottmeyer told me his "interest
in ufology is mainly in the nature of a mental hobby akin to
solving crossword puzzles". While the products of such mental
gymnastics can be useful when applied to real-world data whose
relevancy is solidly established, they are worse than useless
when wielded without such a connection. Marty, with respect, if
you can't plausibly marry up theories and facts, stick to
crosswords.

Karl T. Pflock,
Placitas, New Mexico


Dear Karl:

Your challenge to me to come up with evidence that Betty was
consumed by fears of radioactive bomb-test fallout associated
with Project Bravo is misguided. I did not say she feared
fallout from any test. I said she feared she had been exposed to
radiation during the UFO encounter. The quote, "She almost
panicked . . . " and the claim that she was haunted by the
thought she had been exposed to radioactivity appear on pp. 39
and 40 of The Interrupted Journey and I consider that synonymous
with anxiety.

I have never denied Barney had an experience. You have termed
the claim of influence by "The Bellero Shield" a "mere nit"
elsewhere. Donald Keyhoe singled out the sinister look of the
eyes as something that needed to be fully explained and
doubtless would praise you for correcting his misimpression of
its import. Still, it is not the effects on the assessment of
the Hill case that made the finding interesting to me, it was
the fact that many post-Hill cases also claimed that aliens had
wraparound eyes. Your faith that Barney saw eyes that were
"compelling" is puzzling. When I laid out the paper trail for
Bullard, he agreed that this particular description does not
appear ("The Eyes Still Speak", REALL News, June/July 1998,
available on the REALL website).

That the connection of the false teeth episode in the Hill case
to the Koehler yarn is tenuous is true, but quite beside the
point. The whole exercise was an attempt to show an alternative
explanation is possible, not that it was certain. Mack was
implying that alternative interpretations of alien medical
procedures were not even conceivable. I showed it was not as
difficult as he thought. Let me interject that if we accept
certain claims that abductions have been happening since before
the turn of the century and in massive numbers, the surprise
shown over the dentures is a bit odd. Sixty-plus years and they
haven't seen dentures before?

In saying stick to crosswords, you presume I do crosswords in
the present tense. I have not done any in probably 15 or 20
years. I used to like them, but interests change.

Martin S. Kottmeyer,
Carlyle, Illinois

First, with respect to your declaration that, to your knowledge,
there are no cases with multiple independent witnesses "which
cannot be explained with reference to sightings of aircraft or
natural phenomena", I find it hard to believe you are not aware
of many such cases. So I suspect this was a ploy to draw out
ETHers, case lists in hand.

Of course, such sightings are numerous, many of them very
significant in terms of the ETH or, at least, encounters with
non-human technology. I'll cite just three of my favourites: (1)
12 August 1953, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, multiple
ground and airborne visual and radar, with apparent UFO reaction
to witness actions (see Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified
Flying Objects, pp. 232-235 in Doubleday hardcover, pp. 304-308
in Ace paperback); (2) 30 June 1950, near Kingman, Kansas,
multiple ground visual CE-I/II, with apparent UFO reaction to
witness actions (see Gross, UFOs: A History - April-July 1950,
pp. 66-70); (3) 17 July 1957, over Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas
and Oklahoma, multiple airborne and ground radar visual, with
radar-emitting UFO and apparent UFO reactions to witness
activity (see Brad Sparks, "RB-47 Radar Visual Case", in Clark,
The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, pp. 761-790).

Second, "Betty Hill's Medical Nightmare" redux, reply to Martin
Kottmeyer's rejoinder:

I didn't suggest Kottmeyer claimed Betty "feared fallout from
any test" but rather that his suggestion that Betty was primed
to fear exposure to radiation by the fallout paranoia of the
time - the inescapable meaning of what you wrote, Marty - is
offered without a single fact to back it up.

As for the compelling eyes, I misspoke, or "mistyped". What I
should have written was that, from the beginning of the
investigation in 1961, it was clear Barney Hill was deeply
affected emotionally by what seemed to him the intense focus of
the UFO "captain". Quoting from Walter Webb's 26 October 1961
report on the case, recounting his interview with the Hills on
19 October: "The "leader" at the window held a special
attraction for the witness and frightened him terribly. The
witness said he could almost feel this figure's intense
concentration to do something, to carry out a plan. Mr Hill
believed he was going to be captured "like a bug in a net.""

Whether the leader had compelling eyes or not, it's clear from
the outset, well before the "Bellero Shield" and hypnosis,
Barney Hill found the figure he saw frighteningly compelling. As
I noted in my previous letter to MMS, we are indebted to Marty
Kottmeyer for pointing out the "Bellero Shield" problem and thus
the need to suspend judgement or at least be very cautious about
the eyes that spoke, but only the eyes. I don't recall referring
to the possible influence of this Outer Limits episode as a
"mere nit", but if I did (sounds like me), I was wrong.

Kottmeyer's point about claims of alien abduction subsequent to
the Hill case reflecting key features of that case as it has
been recounted is well taken and now well recognised in ufology,
in no small degree thanks to Marty. Equally well taken is his
case against John Mack's sweeping assertion about alien medical
procedures. However, I stand by my criticism of his article with
respect to the Hill case. While I am pleased to have Marty's
clarification of his intent, the fact remains that, without this
clarification, we can only read what he did say, not what he
meant to say.

Karl T. Pflock

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Mark Pilkington

"A heathen perhaps, but not, I hope, an unenlightened one."
Lord Summerisle
------------------------------------------------
Magonia Online



http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                      Re: What Have We Really Learned?

From: Alan Loper <cheepnis@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:27:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:22:12 -0400
Subject: Re: What Have We Really Learned?


>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:01:52 EDT
>Subject: Re: What Have We Really Learned?
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Ufology: What have we really learned?
>>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:58:06 PDT

>>50th Anniversary Of Ufology:
>>What Have We Really Learned
>>by Jerry Black

>>To all interested parties;

>>Back in 1997, during the first week in June, I had received a
>>call from a UPI reporter that had contacted Mr. Kenny Young.
>>Evidently, Young had given him my name for a telephone
>>interview, as the reporter wanted my opinion about the 50th
>>anniversary of the modern era of UFOs.

>> Snip... but with respect

>>Again we have Stanton Friedman in his latest book with Whitley
>>Strieber writing the foreword. Not only does he write this
>>segment of Friedman's book, but it is noted very prominently on
>>the outside cover of the book, stating: "Foreword by Whitley
>>Strieber." I asked Mr. Friedman if he supported the Whitley
>>Strieber case, or was this done to help sell the book, by either
>>himself or the publisher. There was no response. Regardless,
>>when UFO investigators who have been in the business 10 or
>>15-years see what they perceive to be one of the self-proclaimed
>>leaders in ufology with Whitley Strieber writing a foreword for
>>their book, they make the assumption that Mr. Friedman supports
>>the Whitley Strieber case. I cannot see how that Stanton
>>Friedman, without taking a look at the Whitley Strieber story,
>>can support that case.

>>Mr. Stanton Friedman, one of our self-proclaimed spokesmen, not
>>only supports the hoaxed case of Whitley Strieber, but also
>>-because of his loyalty to Bruce Maccabee and what he has said
>>about the Gulf Breeze investigations - supports the hoaxed Ed
>>Walters/Gulf Breeze scenarios.
>
>> Snip yet again with respect
>
>Dear List Members, this post is not marked with an "S"
>
>Mr. White.... Black, sorry.... I always get those two colors
>confused. Anyway, Dear Mr. Sir... I know how you must feel. And
>so I would like very much to make it up to you. I, Dr. Jaime
>Gesundt, ufologist and Vintner, Clinton supporter and Nixon
>advocate, I, the premier researcher in UFOs, will write a
>forward to your next book.

>Or, if you like, to your next post.  Having my forward on your
>front of the back will make whatever you say even more behind
>than if my forward were not in front, but in the back.  's OK,
>dude..... don't thank me.  It's a pleasure to serve you... like
>in that Twighlight Zone piece, "To Serve Man!"  Remember?

>Now you too, can be forwarded by a real poisenality. Me!

>Gesundt

Dear Dr. Jaime-

I am current putting together a tome which I have tentatively titled

UFOlogy - Observations From the Bleachers

It will cover my observations of the study of UFOs for as long
as I can remember. I have been observing ufology since the 60's
and have always been facinated by the mysteries in our skies.
While i have not undertaken the direct study of any particular
cases, I have read everything I could get my hands on and have
been following the subject through every means at my disposal.
This has included the list which has proven to be quite a
resource of information.

I am humbled by the presence of people whose works I have read
in the past, present, and future. They represent to me the
leading lights in the research that is ongoing. To actually read
their posts is probably as close to a personal contact as I will
ever get to these folks. I am especially grateful to you sir for
providing this list with a bit of levity that is sometimes
missing in such studious fields of endeavor.

And so that is why I would like you to write me a forward to be included
at the back of my book as if it were an epilogue.
        I also would like to say that from my view-looking in from the
outside-well it would seem that what is needed most is more serious study.
Not name calling and cacophony.
k


"Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome."

--Isaac Asimov






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:05:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:37:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:21:11 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 23:40:42 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy >dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>Dennis,

>You suggest that his reliability with respect to later sightings
>is an indicator of his reliability during his first sighting.

>This is not necessarily true. I have noticed that witnesses
>sometimes become less reliable in the sense that once they have
>been "radicalized" by the discovery that there really is
>something strange "out there" they become more likely to believe
>that any following sighting they can't explain might be related
>to the first, i.e., another saucer.

Bruce,

Unlike almost everyone who followed in his wake, Arnold was
operating without any UFO baggage when he reported his first
sighting. As best I can tell, he thought he saw high-speed
military aircraft, not necessarily something interplanetary or
overly strange "out there."

It's only my own personal opinion, but the first Arnold sighting
has always struck me as being of the nature of almost too good
to be true. Something exceedingly startling happens, and rather
than being transfixed or mesmerized by events, Arnold
immediatley goes into measurement mode. He does everything
right: notes distant features, pulls out his watch, compares the
objects' relative size to a cowling tool he whips out of his
pocket, after first comparing same to a distant DC-4
(convenient, that), rolls down his window and turns parallel to
the objects to make sure they're not reflections, etc., each and
every base covered. Airtight and snap right. All the while
concerned with flying his own airplane.

Can't say it didn't happen that way, just always wondered if it
really did.

Five weeks later or so, he reports a second sighting in the
vaguest of generalities: "There were a couple of dozen of them,
possibly more." He describes them as large, "at least three feet
across or possibly four or five."  Five weeks into the modern
UFO era and Arnold has already seen something like 33 or 45 of
the suckers, nine of one kind, size and color, two or three
dozen of another kind, size, and color, but all really, really
fast. And, therefore, I guess, all legitimate UFOs.

In 1952 he films two UFOs, one of them transparent, but
apparently never makes the film public. According to Clark, he
logs at least five more UFO sightings, the details of which are
even more scanty than those of his second sighting.

I just find it odd that his first sighting gets the Full Monty
treatment, and the others, including the film, get the old, "Eh,
what's up, doc?" response. Maybe Arnold got bored.

>>I frankly don't care whether his captured images are good or
>>not. I simply want to know whether something he claimed (the
>>film) can be veriified or not. Something you and Maccabee don't
>>seem the least bit interested in.

>Dumb remark. Obviously we would be interested. I don't know of
>anyone who has seen Arnold's film. Do you?

No, and that was my point. If you're interested in the film,
then you should be interested in trying to learn more about it,
such as its actual existence and present location. As opposed,
one might argue, to applying trigonometry to Arnold's earlier
claims. Both, btw, are worthwhile pursuits, but one possibly
leads to something physical (the film), whereas the other leads
only to endless argument and speculation.

<snip>

>If ufologists were richer...they might be more generous.

Granted. Alas, now we can look forward to a sociological study
titled, "Why Are Ufologists Such Poor Slobs In The First Place?"

>>>>Aside from Arnold, the book contains articles by Jenny Randles,
>>>>Jerome Clark, Jacques Vallee, Bill Chalker, Ray Fowler, Chris
>>>>Rutkowski, Robert Durant, David Perkins, Col. Hector
>>>>Quintanilla, Michael Swords, Karl Pflock, James Moseley, Jan
>>>>Aldrich, Vicente-Juan Ballester Omos and others.

<snip>

>At least we now know who bought the book!


Wrong again, Bruce! They all got free copies from the publisher!






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:12:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:24:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 99 19:38:05 PDT

<snip>

> Isn't there a statute of limitations on the
>trashing of witnesses?
>

Jerry,

I think you may have missed a post somewhere along the way, so I
won't respond to your above snipped comments except to say, No,
there is no statute of limitations when it comes to trashing UFO
witnesses. The CIA never sleeps, especially when it comes to UFO
Updates!

(This is probably not a good time for me to respond because, as
chance would have it, the Ray Suarez program on National Public
Radio is playing in the background. Subject matter? Two false
memoirs recently published to critical acclaim. One by a
Guatemalan woman, who went on to receive the Nobel Peace Prize,
the other by some guy who recounted his Holocaust childhood that
didn't happen. Don't worry, Jerry, I'm not putting Arnold in
their camp.)

<snip>

>How kind of you.  In fact, Maury Island tells us just how
>honest a guy Arnold was.  To those of us who look back at it, it
>seems transparently obvious that Crisman and Dahl were lying
>through their respective chops.

So much for those statutes of limitation! But I guess nothing
Arnold said or wrote can be called into question by anyone?

>Arnold was such a straight
>arrow that it never occurred to him his "witnesses" might not be
>the same.  Sadly, years of ridicule and harassment led him to a
>considerably darker view of his fellow humans. I guess we can be
>happy that he is not around to read this new round of
>Arnold-bashing.

>Unlike you, I knew Arnold, who was all he was cracked up to be:
>sharp, honest, shrewd, conservative, and unimaginative.  Not, in
>short, a fruitcake by any definition except, I gather, yours.
>His interest in UFOs as such was long past, but he did take the
>trouble to answer my questions about various claims attributed
>to him. One, which first surfaced in a Harold T. Wilkins book,
>was a supposed quote asserting that Arnold had observed evidence
>of invisible entities in his home.  He said the story was a
>flat-out fabrication. He had no idea where it came from.

Glad to have the information. But if Arnold was really so sharp
and shrewd, how were Dahl and Crisman able to take him in so
easily?

>As I have already pointed out, evidently to zero effect, Arnold
>is not the only observer to witness an aerial phenomenon which
>resembled some sort of organic entity.  One famous case -- more
>fantastic than any Arnold ever reported -- involved Philadelphia
>police officers who on September 26, 1950, saw an unidentified
>object fall from the sky and come down in a field.  It turned
>out to be a gelatinous mass which dissolved half an hour later.
>Oh yeah, excuse me.  I forgot.  Fruitcakes. Never mind.

>Jerry Clark


No, it wasn't to zero effect. In your request for more such
cases, I sent you one cited by Arnold himself, remember? If not,
see pp. 27-28 of the Proceedings of the First International UFO
Congress. You're welcome! Whether it's as fantastic as the
Philadelphia case above or not, I leave you to decide.

However, there is absolutely no historical evidence that I'm
aware of that Boeing ever had a test plane capable of flying
1500 mph at 67,000 feet. So, either this was a case of
straight-arrow Arnold again, or he had a lower credibility
threshhold than some of us, or he simply got his facts seriously
wrong.

I'm sorry you think this is an exercise in nothing more than
Arnold bashing. History is a process in constant revision. For
but one example, see the revision of the career of
anthropologist Margaret Mead. For all I know, she was a
perfectly remarkable and upstanding person face to face, but
that doesn't render her immune to error. Arnold, alas, is not
immune, either.

If you want, all of the above can be overlooked and reduced to a
question of historical significance.

Arnold claimed he filmed two UFOs, one of which was transparent.
I asked what happened to the film. If your answer, as a UFO
historian, is that "we don't know, Arnold never printed any
stills from the film, nor did he ever, as far as is known, make
the film publicly available for inspection," then, fine, that's
history's answer. Cut and print. If your answer is, "I don't
know, who cares, and on top of that I'm sick of all this Arnold
bashing, and Stacy quacks like a suspiciously anti-UFO duck in
the bargain," well, then, _that's_ your (and no doubt Rudiak's)
answer. Cut and print. The choice is yours.

The last time I looked, historians had an obligation to the
truth as it can best be determined, not to choosing sides in a
perceived squabble.

If someone else wants to delve a little deeper, in the hope that
the film might still be found in Arnold's remaining files,
Godspeed and more power to them. Last I was aware, he had a
surviving daughter. A simple letter from someone might suffice.

I simply find the incident and claim exceedingly curious. If he
filmed UFOs, then why not show the film? What happened to it?
Does anyone know? Does anyone care? And what about that Boeing
test plane, anyway? History would like to know.

We do know that he apparently took to carrying a camera in the
cockpit because of a posed publicity photograph taken showing
him holding what is probably a (Honeywell?) 16mm camera with
telescopic lens while standing beside his plane. A reproduction
of same can be found on the cover of the March/April 1995 IUR.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                        Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture

From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:07:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:28:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture



>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: Errol Knapp <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture
>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:46:21 +0100


>Max Burns gave his much talked about lecture on Saturday (5th
>June). The talk was detailed and was constructive, the talk was

>Thanks to Malcolm for this one.....


That "much talked about lecture" only attracted 35 people to a
venue that holds over 100 in the centre of London. Just shows
how marginal the lecture was and BUFORA currently is...

Mike Wootten






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

             SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:02:41
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:09:40 -0400
Subject: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets



Source: Wired News,

http://www.wired.com:80/news/print_version/technology/story/20088.html?wnpg=
=3D
all

Links are preceded by an asterisk.

Stig

***

updated 4:30 p.m. 10.Jun.99.PDT

A Search for Intelligent Searchers

by Leander Kahney

3:00 a.m.  9.Jun.99.PDT

**

Computer users who are contributing to the SETI (search for
alien life) project are inadvertently wasting CPU cycles by
processing data that has already been scanned.

Due to failures in coping with the overwhelming response from
volunteers, the SETI@home project has been erroneously sending
the same packets of radio data to its 500,000 participants.

Opened to the public last month, the SETI@home project uses
spare computing cycles on PCs to search for the telltale signs
of intelligent life in radio signals beamed to Earth from outer
space.

PC users around the globe have loaded screensaver software that
scans the data when their computers aren't otherwise in use.

Some volunteers are less than happy.

"Needless to say, a number of participants, myself included, are
now scaling down our search for extraterrestrial intelligence
until we find some local intelligence to properly manage this
project," wrote Tim Keating, a volunteer from Light House Point,
Florida, in an email.

According to Keating, volunteers figured out that they were
processing the same 115 blocks of data from a two-day period in
January that were recorded by the Arecibo radio telescope in
Puerto Rico.

New packets of data stopped being sent out around 24 May,
Keating said.

What most miffed Keating and other volunteers was the lack of
communication from the project's leaders.

"They didn't tell anyone," Keating wrote. "The result: The
world's greatest waste of computing power and energy to date. I
estimate ... the SETI@home project is wasting worldwide around
eight tons of fossil fuel per hour."

SETI@home has since acknowledged its problems and apologized to
volunteers.

"Our 'data pipeline' is not flowing at top speed yet, so we're
sending out the same work units [mostly recorded 7 January and 8
January] repeatedly," the SETI site says. "This will be fixed
shortly.... So please bear with us during these 'growing pains,'
and thanks for being part of this incredible project."

Project director David Anderson said a shortage of manpower and
computers led to the project's problems. Initially, the project
planned on 150,000 volunteers and was simply overwhelmed when
more than 500,000 signed up.

"It's been a combination of a lot of things: a shortage of [hard
disk] storage space, computing power, and manpower."

The massive response led SETI@home to allocate most of its
computing power to the Web servers that handled the software
downloads, leaving it short of machines capable of parceling the
raw data into new packets to be processed. Therefore, the same
packets of data were sent out over and over. Anderson said that
ultimately, SETI@home hopes to process the data as it comes in
from the Arecibo telescope.

Most of the project's growing pains will be fixed when the
project installs a new batch of donated workstations from Sun
Microsystems, the first of which should be online in the next
couple of weeks, Anderson said.

The project is also planning to release new client software that
fixes a number of bugs.

Anderson said one advantage to having so many volunteers is that
the project should easily catch up with the backlog of data once
the problems are ironed out. On the downside, he said, some
volunteers are cheating.

The project acknowledges the most productive workgroups, leading
to intense competition for the highest ranking.

Anderson said that at least two of the top 10 work groups have
only reached the rankings because some of the members had
cheated.

"I don't want to name names," he said, "But it's fair to say the
Unix and Linux crowds are causing most of the headaches. It
seems to be the hacker mentality."

Anderson said some groups are claiming credit for processing the
same data packet over and over, while others are taking credit
for work done by unaffiliated individuals.

Someone else hacked the list of originating countries, claiming
that he or she came from Mars, Anderson said.

As for faking contact with ET, Anderson said it would be
pointless: Any claim can be checked against the original data.

"Every time there's a loophole, someone's exploited it," he
said. "There seems to be a gleeful joy in subverting the system
somehow.... It's just another headache for me."


See also: *Searching for ET with Your PC


Related Wired Links:

E.T. Goes to College
19.Feb.99

Getting Some Alien Experience
3.Aug.98

SETIng Sights Closer to Home
10.Jul.98

ET Phones Home, Via Satellite Dish
17.Dec.96


Have a comment on this article?

*Send it.


Copyright =A9 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

               Re: Kenneth Arnold's Sighting [was: Re: Voyager

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:47:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:25:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Sighting [was: Re: Voyager


Regarding:

>Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:10:18 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

[I've changed the heading to something more meaningful]

Bruce wrote:

>Let's forget the claim of going in and out of the mountains for
>the moment and simply concentrate on the directions to the
>objects (a) when first seen, (b) when passing Mt. Rainier, (c)
>when in the direction of >Mt. Adams.


Bruce,

That's ideal and thank you for the overall assessment.

Before going further with this, there are a few questions I
would like to have resolved.

In your 'Complete Sighting...' report, you refer to the
following extract from Arnold's letter to the Air Force:

"There was a DC-4 to the left and to the rear of me
approximately fifteen miles distance, and I should judge, at
14,000 ft. elevation".

"I knew they [the objects] must be very large to observe their
shape at that distance, even on as clear a day as it was that
Tuesday. In fact I compared a zeus fastener or cowling tool I
had in my pocket - holding it up on them and holding it up on
the DC- 4 - that I could observe at quite a distance to my left,
and they seemed smaller than the DC-4; but I should judge their
span would have been as wide as the furtherest engines on each
side of the DC-4".

You then comment:

"Arnold provided an estimate of size in an indirect way: he
stated that they appeared to be comparable to the spacing of the
engines on a DC-4 (4 engine propeller driven, 117 ft wingspan, 94
ft length, 27 ft height) which he had seen at a distance which he
estimated as 15 miles. He estimated the engine spacing to be 45 -
50 ft, although 60 ft would have been a better estimate. By this
means he was essentially providing an angular size for the
objects: the equivalent of about 60 ft at 15 miles. He reported
the size of the objects as 45 - 50 ft by comparison with the
airplane as if the plane had been at the same distance as the
objects. However, the plane was not at the same distance, so a
correction for the distance difference is necessary.

It is possible to make an estimate of the size of the objects
assuming his estimate of the distance to the DC-4, 15 miles, was
(approximately) correct. (Here comes some math and geometry, so
if you are squeamish about such subjects, skip over the next four
sentences.) Using the outer engine spacing as 60 ft, the angular
size at his estimated distance is 60/(15 x 5280) = 0.00076
radians or about 2.6 minutes of arc (1 degree = 60 minutes =
0.0174 radians). Projecting this angle to 20 miles, the rough
distance of the objects, would yield a size of about (20 x 5280 x
0.00075 = ) 80 ft. Had he overestimated the distance to the DC-4
(if it had been less than 15 miles away) the calculated angular
size, and hence the calculated object size would increase. If he
underestimated the distance to the DC-4, then the calculated size
would decrease. My own suspicion is that he overestimated the
distance and that therefore the objects were larger than 80 ft in
length. Unfortunately no investigator pursued this size estimate
at the time and with Arnold's death many years ago it is no
longer possible to improve the size estimate".


In your paper, 'Still in Default' - 'Originally Published in the
Proceedings of the 1986 MUFON International Symposium. Updates
to 1998 in square parentheses', you wrote:

[Note: a very complete analysis of Arnold's sighting has been
published in the  Proceedings of the International Conference of
the Mutual UFO Network, 1997. In that much longer paper I point
out that Arnold compared the apparent size of the UFO to the
spacing between engines on DC-4 aircraft - 117ft wingspan, 94 ft
long, 23 ft fuselage height - which he thought was about 15 miles
away.

The point is that since Arnold could see the engines on the
aircraft at 15 miles - or even if it was only at 10 miles - then
he had better than average visual acuity.

Since the engines were about 60 ft apart and since the UFOs were
farther away than the airplane the estimated size of the UFOs
would be 80 - 120 feet.)]
[End]


When considering all the probabilities, should your above point
be taken into account?

Is it being accepted that Arnold claims to have seen the DC-4s
engines at 15 miles, i.e., sufficiently that he could use this
observation in a rough calculation?

If the DC-4 was 15 miles distant as Arnold claimed, how do we
quantify "better than average visual acuity" then; would it be
above average, exceptional or incredible?


In his letter to the Air Force, Arnold also wrote:

"I observed the chain of these objects passing another snow-
covered ridge in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams, and as the
first one was passing the south crest of this ridge the last
object was entering the northern crest of the ridge. As I was
flying in the direction of this particular ridge, I measured it
and found it to be approximately five miles so I could safely
assume that the chain of these saucer like objects were at least
five miles long".

You have referenced this 'five mile' chain in the 'Complete
Sighting...' paper, i.e., "Since the length of the 'chain' of
objects was about 5 miles (paragraph H [as] above), the leading
object was about 5 miles south of Mt. Adams when the last object
passed Mt. Adams".

What Arnold doesn't explain here is that he DID NOT measure this
ridge at the time.

At least according to the details in his book, when he writes,
"Between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams there is a very high
plateau with quite definite north and south edges. Part of this
chain-like formation traveled above this plateau towards Mount
Adams, while part of the formation actually dipped below the
near edge. As the first unit of these craft cleared the
southernmost edge of this background, the last of the formation
was just entering the northern ridge.

I later flew over this plateau in my plane and came to a close
approximation that this whole formation of craft, whatever they
were, formed a chain in the neighbourhood of five miles long".

So, the 'five miles' estimate wasn't in fact made until later,
quite different from the impression given in his Air force
letter.

Would you agree that seems to be correct?


Although it maybe doesn't matter, I'm puzzled by his references
to using a watch and then confirming that he didn't. i.e.:

Chicago Daily Tribune, June 25 - "Their speed was apparently so
great I decided to clock them. I took out my watch and checked
off one minutes and 42 seconds from the time they passed Mount
Rainier until they reached the peak of Mount Adams. All told the
objects remained in view slightly less than two minutes from the
time I first noticed them."

Radio interview - "Well, uh, I uh, it was about one minute to
three when I started clocking them on my sweep second hand
clock".

"But when I observed the tail end of the last one passing Mt.
Adams, and I was at an angle near Mt. Rainier from it, but I
looked at my watch and it showed one minute and 42 seconds".

Norman, Oklahoma Transcript, June 26 - "I figure they were
moving about 1,200 miles per hour"..."because I clocked them
with a stop watch during the time it took them to fly from Mount
Rainer to Mount Adams".

'The Coming of the Saucers' - "I remember distinctly that my
sweep second hand on my eight day clock, which is located on the
instrument panel, read one minute to 3 PM as the first object of
this formation passed the southern edge of Mt. Rainier".

"Now, clocking speeds by only your sweep second hand cannot be
entirely accurate because several seconds could be lost in
breaking your gaze to observe your clock".

"I never thought of checking this with my wristwatch".
[End]


Anyway, a most striking discrepancy is the following.

>From your 'Complete Sighting...' paper:

"According to Mr. Arnold, at 2:00 PM, June 24, 1947 he took off
from Chehalis, in the state of Washington, in his small plane
after completing a business trip (he sold and installed fire
fighting equipment). He planned to spend about an hour searching
for a lost C-46 Marine transport plane that had crashed in the
mountains west-southwest of Mt. Rainier. (There was a $5,000
reward for finding the plane.) After searching for about an hour
and not finding anything he turned east toward his next
destination, Yakima, Washington. He was near Mineral,
Washington, about 22 miles west-southwest of Mt. Rainier and
Yakima was about 80 miles ahead of him along a flight path that
would take him just about 12 miles south of peak of Mt. Rainier.
He leveled out onto his new flight path he was at approximately
a 9,200 ft altitude. His sighting began within a minute or two
of the turn".

Therefore:

a) Arnold had spent 'about an hour' searching for the C-46
   Marine transport plane
b) he gave up and turned east towards Yakima
c) his sighting began a couple of minutes later when he was
   flying due east.


Yet, according to Arnold's account in his book:

a) "It was during this search and while making a turn of 180
degrees over Mineral, Washington", that he first noticed the
objects. It wasn't when he was flying due east towards Yakima.

b) After the sighting, he claims, "I tried to focus my mind on a
continued search for the downed C-46 which had crashed some
months earlier". It was only then he decided to abandon the
search and instead head for Yakima.


This is substantiated by his detailed radio interview, in which
he states:

"Well, about 2:15 I took off from Chehalis, Washington, en route
to Yakima, and, of course, every time that any of us fly over the
country near Mt. Rainier, we spend an hour or two in search of
the Marine plane that's never been found that they believe is in
the snow someplace southwest of that particular area. That area
is located at about, it's elevation is about 10,000 foot, and I
had made one sweep in close to Mt. Rainier and down one of the
canyons and was dragging it for any types of objects that might
prove to be the Marine ship, uh, and as I come out of the canyon
there, was about 15 minutes, I was approximately 25 to 28 miles
from Mt. Rainier, I climbed back up to 9200 feet and I noticed to
the left of me a chain which looked to me like the tail of a
Chinese kite, kind of weaving and going at a terrific speed
across the face of Mt. Rainier".

According to this, he had spent some 15 minutes searching for
the C-46?

If he left Chehalis about 2:15, not 2:00 as you noted, how long
would it have approx. taken him to reach Mt Rainier and begin
his search?


How do you equate the account given in that radio interview with
the story told in the Air force letter, i.e.:

"The air was so smooth that day that it was a real pleasure
flying and, as most pilots do, when the air is smooth and they
are flying at a higher altitude, I trimmed out my airplane in
the direction of Yakima, which was almost directly east of my
position and simply sat in my plane observing the sky and
terrain. There was a DC-4 to the left and to the rear of me
approximately fifteen miles distance, and I should judge, at
14,000 ft. elevation".

"The sky and air was as clear as crystal. I hadn't flown more
than two or three minutes on my course when a bright flash light
reflected on my airplane. It startled me as I thought I was too
close to some other aircraft".


No longer did Arnold's observation originate when he was coming
up from the canyon (does he mention the C-46 search at all in
that letter?), now, he was coasting along at a steady pace, with
not a care in the world.

I trust you will accept there are significant anomalies
highlighted here and they have to be addressed first, before
looking at any theoretical maths.


I note that Arnold says in his book, "I was flying a specially
designed mountain airplane".

Do we know what the modifications were?

If I recall, it was a three (maybe four) seater plane. If there
were two seats in the front, which window, left or right, would
be nearest to the pilot?


James.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                        Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture

From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:07:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:43:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture



>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: Errol Knapp <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture
>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:46:21 +0100


>Max Burns gave his much talked about lecture on Saturday (5th
>June). The talk was detailed and was constructive, the talk was

>Thanks to Malcolm for this one.....


That "much talked about lecture" only attracted 35 people to a
venue that holds over 100 in the centre of London. Just shows
how marginal the lecture was and BUFORA currently is...

Mike Wootten





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

              Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell

From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:33:16 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:50:24 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell


Although it is puzzling why Kal Korff is now breathlessly
peddling old news as a News Flash [the official AF position on
Glenn Dennis came out in 1997], and as I do not know where it is
written that CUFOS, especially, must make an official statement
concerning Glenn Dennis, as the CUFOS board member most
responsible for the continuing Roswell investigation, I will
respond.

As matters now stand regarding 'The Glenn Dennis Story', based
upon the investigations of many people over many years, his
story must be rejected on the basis of a known lie [i.e., he
knowingly supplied investigators with a false name for "the
nurse"].

Karl Pflock and Kevin Randle have publicly disavowed Glenn
Dennis for this reason which is their prerogative.

Our investigation of this story continues in the hope of getting
to the ultimate truth behind it [whatever it is] other than just
saying, "He lied." and walking away. When we feel that we have
reached that point, we will not need badgering from a Kal Korff
to put it on the record.






                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

              Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:15:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:22:18 -0400
>From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

>>So I'll stay tuned for any idea you
>>put forth on how it could be feasibly accomplished for a circle
>>as large as 57 feet in diameter. It was probably no accident
>>that the upper-layer circle of swirled stems did not entirely
>>cover the under layer at the circumference -- if they had, the
>>lower lower might not have been discovered.

>Looking at the diagram [p. 22 of Noye's book or p. 18 of Meaden's
>book] it looks as though the crop was flattened
>from the centre spiralling out and then back to the middle and
>so on. Continue that until all the crop was flattened and you'd
>end up with the effect of layering described in the book. As the
>crop was packed down and serrated at the edges it's possible it
>was done with a roller rather than boards.

You left out a lot of details, Tony, and the "Haying Devil" is
in the details. If you think about it a little more, you'll see
that your two sentences don't begin to explain it. How wide a
swath would you flatten at one time in a swirl from the center
counterclockwise out to the edge? After you had swirled down the
lower layer, how would there be about an equal number of stems
left standing all about for you to start swirling similarly, but
from the outer edge to the center, so as to form the upper
layer?

Meaden's attempted explanation was similarly lacking. In his
book (p. 17) he merely wrote: "..a vortex had initially scribed
a circle with an outwardly-directed anticlockwise veining...,
but that a second stage had evolved in which the superior straws
had shifted again to finish as an anticlockwise-inward pattern."
So he failed also to figure out how there would be any
"superior" straws left standing to be swirled orthogonally to
form the upper layer. That is, the straws forming the lower
layer weren't bent half way up at right angles to form an upper
layer; instead the upper-layer stems were bent over very near to
the ground, as were the lower-layer stems.

In trying to answer my own questions above, I would conceive of:

(a) forming a succession of narrow swaths from the center
counterclockwise out to the edge, having a width, for
feasibility, of about 4 inches. So after marking the center of
the circle, you'd strap a board of 4" width and about 1 or 2
feet in length to the bottom of each shoe, then march carefully
outwards from the center in a sort of scuffing style (toe up,
heel down), so as to lay down the stems in the two swirled paths
along the direction you're heading. (The boards might consist of
sawed-off tip sections of skis.) However, you'd be careful to
leave a strip of standing stems of width 4" in between. Some 135
trips outward like this should suffice, carefully retracing
one's steps from the outer edge back to the center each time.
You'd cover a distance of about 1.8 miles in doing this, and
going at 1/4 mph top speed outwards but 1 mph back inwards, this
stage should take two hoaxers only a little over two hours to
accomplish.

(b) Then the hoaxers would bend over the remaining standing
stems -- the other half of the crop within the circle -- moving
from outer edge in, using a somewhat wider board strapped to one
or both feet, forming swirls at right angles to the lower-layer
swirls. This might be accomplished in just one more hour.

But why do I suspect that it would look like a mess when done?
In the first place, the 4" wide swaths of the lower layer would
not be neatly laid down like that, because as the narrow board
is pressed down at each step, most all the stems would splay
outwards instead of laying down in the desired direction of
travel.

In the second place, this plan is totally flawed because the
width of the boards would have to start out at about 0.1", or
one stem width, within a couple feet of the circle's center, and
only gradually widen to 4" as you approach the circle's outer
edge.

Third, it doesn't account for the extra skill needed in plotting
a swirled course of travel that is congruent all the way around
the circle. So I suspect these are typical reasons why no one
has attempted to hoax a two-layer system of a size at all this
big.

Or, how would you conceive of doing it, Tony, in a manner that's
feasible?

>>I would not assume that the tests haven't been made by Levingood
>>on stems from oil-seed rape crop circles.

>Why do you think that is?

Since speculating on it, I've learned from Nancy Talbott that
Levingood has made such tests on a few bent over canola stalks
some years ago, with results consistent with those found in
wheat and barley, etc., but that he apparently hasn't written
the results up anywhere and hasn't done any testing of canola
stalks from more recent cc's. The canola stalks are so bushy and
big, and thus extra costly to ship from England to the U.S. East
coast, that this has discouraged their study in this country.

>>I was referring to certain crop-circle
>>reports wherein the stems within a given formation were all bent
>>over at the *same* approximate height, like 1" or 2" or 4" above
>>the ground, as opposed to the usual 1/4" or so, which trampling
>>on it can try to simulate.

>Have you got the details of the formation/s where the crop is
>all flattened at 4" above the ground?

The 4" figure was a ballpak guess. You'll need to ask the cc experts for
that data. Wait, I was lucky enough to find one example of this type in my
assorted files. It was the "Egg, Tear & Slice" formation in barley reported
in Sussex on 21 June 1994. There the crop in the three separate segments of
the formation was all bent over from between 17" and 22" above the ground
(at least as tough to envision hoaxing as if it had been at 4" above the
ground). Instead of swirls, the lay of the bent-over upper sections of the
crop consisted of multiple woven "nests." It was reported and described by
Barry Reynolds of the Centre for Crop Circle Studies, Sussex Branch, in 9
July 1994. Nothing like it had been seen before.

>>Their makers were never caught, whereas common sense dictates
>>that if humans had done them, a substantial percentage would
>>have been caught in the act, and/or have left tell-tale signs
>>behind.

>Not really, once in the dark your eyes adjust pretty quickly,
>particularly when there aren't any light sources around the
>affect the pupils. In the dark circle makers are probably
>undetectable 200 foot or so into the crop, now given that
>Wiltshire is a pretty large county the odds really are in their
>favour.

Well, a car's headlights or engine noise driving towards a
farmer's field at night can sometimes alert the curiosity of the
farmer who had to get up in the middle of the night. Or hoaxers
in a field can attract the attention of dogs that bark loudly.
Etc.

But consider if the odds of hoaxers forming a crop-circle
formation at night without being detected were 0.99 (i.e., very
good). What then are the odds of doing this over and over 1000
times over several years and never being detected at it? It
would seem to be (0.99)**1000 (raised to the 1000th power),
which is only 0.000043; i.e., terrible odds! But if you only did
it 10 times, the odds are 0.9 you wouldn't be caught.

BTW, did you hear about the eye-witness account of the formation
of a crop circle that Linda Howe reported on Art Bell recently,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 05:43:01 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:45:31 -0400
Subject: Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon


>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:22:00 +0200 (MET DST)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

>>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:46:53 -0700
>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: US Congress, NSA butt heads over Echelon

>>Due to the 13 Echelon Sattelites covering all sectors of the
>>globe, no electronic communications can evade monitoring.

>Hi Josh,

>How do you know there are 13 of these satellites and what other
>specific information do you have that has not been reported in
>the press?



Well Henny, I think you'll need to ask the Discovery Channel as
that was reported on their show. I vageuly remember it may have
involved the former SCE employee.

To further spice up the stew, that show also stated and
visualized (with interviews) that during the height of the
Chechen - Russian War the leader of the Chechens was talking on
his cellphone exploring peace possibilities Now he knew that the
Russian Electronic listening forces had tracking equipment that
would nab him if he stayed on the phone longer than five
minutes. They had repeatedly tried to lock in on him but there
was a lot of pressure on Russia to quickly and strongly settle
this war rather than let it drag on. Yeltsin had to do something
to make him look good. So the US co-operated and used their
better system to guide a missile right into his cellphone just
after he was on the phone for 30 seconds. We helped Yeltsin to
look good and victorious. So said a high level expert on the
Discovery show.


No, I don't run a conspiracy theory chat line but I'm simply
restating a juicy part of the Discovery show. I told you about
the domestic intelligence inter-nation trade policy and here is
an intelligence and technology gift offered for this purpose: to
assasinate the leader of of the Chechnya nation. Thanks to the
help of the U.S they finally eliminated him. From Discovery to
you. That juicy tidbit above was a total surprise to me.

Now after all these years of feeding my passion to know more
about UFOs and aliens I must confess to this list a deep secret
I never divulged to another person in the UFO world. I was a
teenage UFO delinquent! I must absolve my sin and confess to my
fellow ufonauts on this list.

In 1960 at the age of 14 I joined the Civil Air Patrol to
enhance my love of airplanes and hopes to be a pilot. At some
point in the future we were doing a weekend encampment at our
airfield in the country - a 2300ft. grass strip and we stayed in
a tent. No adults were there.  Someone that night got the idea
(hope it wasn't me) of going out to the road en masse. At least
a dozen or so cadets dressed in Air Force fatigues with dummy
rifles and Air Force caps. We decided to stand on both sides of
the road with flashlights and stop cars as they came. We pointed
rifles and checked IDs after men stood across the road in front
of the car. We told them that the area had been blocked off due
to the crash of a UFO and we interviewed them, asking if they
had seen anything. When they were totally befuddled we had them
turn around and take the long way we instructed them to follow.
I really can't remember what I knew about UFO crashes in 1960
but I sure had an active interest. Was I the culprit? I can't
remember.

Suddenly a flashing red light was aproaching and it was a police
car. They had suddenly started getting tons of calls at the
station from people we had stopped at the roadblocks. It was the
talk of the town. Crashed flying saucer out near the airport. We
quckly made a beeline to our tent and into our sleeping bags,
pretending to sleep. When the cops came to the tent we could not
hide from them. They knew it was us. I suppose then the senior
CAP adults pulled up and shared with us many pieces of their
minds about our crashed saucer hoaxing. In the long run I was a
good cadet and two years later I was awarded a scholarship for
flying lessons. A super cub on a grass strip.

The discussion of the Kenneth Arnold sighting got me remembering
learning to navigate by dead reckoning. You'd better reckon your
course and speed right or you may end up dead. Reckon or maybe
dead. Those were the days. When I flew in Vietnam I used live
reckoning. <g>

The last straw: flying reflective geese at a high altitude with
a supersonic tailwind ocurring only in their sector due to being
downwind from the mountains.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

               Earth Changes TV/Breaking News - Did NASA Erase

From: Mitch Battros <earthcng@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:10:57 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:32:44 -0400
Subject: Earth Changes TV/Breaking News - Did NASA Erase



Did NASA Erase It's Tracks Over Solar Explosion?...06/10/99
by Mitch Battros (ECTV)

This could be one of the largest cover ups from NASA we have
seen in a long time, or, it could be nothing at all.

One of our viewers sent in an email stating she noticed NASA had
omitted, or erased, JUNE 1ST data on the link below. This just
happens to be the date of the C.M.E. (coronal mass ejection).
Also take note, it was the BBC (British Broadcasting
Corporation) that broke the story. Nothing from our own national
networks.

I would like your help in this investigation. If you know of a
web site, or perhaps someone working for NASA that can explain
the reason for the omission of this date, please forward. Also,
send information as to why NASA did not disclose this
information to the public at, or before, the time of this event.

Is it NASA's policy to NOT disclose potentially deadly, or at
least severely disruptive events?   It is not only solar flares
were we have seen this omission before. It has also occurred
with NEO's (near earth orbits) related to Asteroids.

Sharon B. wrote:

Check out the following web site which is NASA's 10 day
animation of the sun. Notice that June 1 (CME) has been omitted
from the animation. You will have to slow down the animation to
2 images per second to see that they skip from May 31 to June 2.

http://www.spaceweather.com/java/solar-anim.html


Remember, this could be nothing at all. It is possible, NASA was simply taking t
he day off. After all, it was Memorial Day.

Mitch Battros
Producer - Earth Changes TV
Web Site:
http://www.earthchangesTV.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:47:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:30:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 99 19:38:05 PDT

>>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:17:16 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

<snip>

>>No, logic such as this simply means that when you're dealing
>>with an anecdotal account the only fact you have is the anecdote
>>itself. Which anecdote may or may not be true in particular, or
>>may reflect varying degrees of subjectivity and misperception in
>>general.

>>The only evidence we have for Arnold's sighting is Arnold's
>>account of same.

>Not true.  There's also the Fred M. Johnson's corroborating
>sighting.

>C'mon, Dennis.

<Huge snip already replied to.>

>Jerry Clark


C'mon, Jerry,

Corroborative by what standards of corroboration?

You leave the misleading impression that Johnson saw the exact
same thing that Arnold did at the exact same time, and in the
exact same place -- more or less -- thereby confirming and/or
corroborating Arnold's original account.

Yet your own account of the Johnson sighting, based on a letter
he wrote the Air Force two months after the fact (UFO
Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 141), is full of qualifiers ("they
may...he could well have seen," etc.). So which is it?

To support Johnson's credibility, you'll want to no doubt quote
the following from the FBI  file as established fact:

"Fred Johnson...reported without consulting any records..."
Qualifier: there is no way the interviewing FBI agent could have
determined whether this was absolute fact or not. Obviously, he
is simply reporting Johnson's _claim_ that he hadn't consulted
any records, made moot, in the event, by Johnson's later
admission in the same interview  that he had "noted an article
in the local paper...and communicated with the Army for the sole
purpose of attempting to add credence to the story furnished by
the man in Boise [i.e., Arnold]."

In the end this is not too fine a philosphical point. The
account has to be distinguished from the fact itself.  To assume
that they are one and the same, that is, that Arnold's
perception and/or interpretation of what he saw is the actual
fact itself, and nothing but (no other interpretations
permitted), is ludicrous.

Regardless of whether Arnold, or Johnson, or both, were right or
wrong, there is no excuse for confusing or mistaking an
_account_ of a phenomenon with the phenomenon itself. The two
are separate phenomena and forever will be.

That was my point: Rudiak and Maccabee can mathematically
analyze Arnold's _account_ until hell freezes over. But it
doesn't necessarily tell us that much, if anything, about the
purported phenomenon itself.

Moreover, ufology is replete with cautionary tales. Mark
Cashman, who I greatly respect, recently revealed in IUR that
the 1965 (?) Beaver, Pennsylvania, photos were unalduterated
fakes. Until that time, however, he had the photo(s) on his web
page, subject to all sorts of luminosity analysis and other
"corroborative" evidence. The only problem, in the end, was that
the original account didn't match up with the phenomenon. In
fact, there was no phenomenon.

For another instructive story, read physicist Irwin Wieder's
account of the discovery that the infamous 1966 Willamette Pass,
Oregon, photo was also a patent hoax. Why did it take so long to
explain same? Because, as Wieder so bravely admitted, given the
witness's confirmed credentials, he was perfectly contented to
remain on automatic pilot, what he referred to as "a pure belief
mode." Again, the account and the (non-existent in this case)
phenomenon weren't exactly a one-to-one match up, because,
again, there was no stimulating phenomenon.

Does this mean, ipso facto, that Arnold is in the same league?
Of course not. Does it mean that he _could_ be? I'll leave that
up to you to decide.

By the same token, there's no compelling reason, granted Clark's
exalted UFO theology (in which witnesses are never confused
about anything, but always spot on), to argue that Arnold
shouldn't ascend to ufological sainthood post haste. Hey, the
guy was only human.

Or did I misread my scripture?

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                 DISPATCH # 110 -- the weekly newsletter of

From: ParaScope@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:34:28 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:21:09 -0400
Subject: DISPATCH # 110 -- the weekly newsletter of

DISPATCH # 110 -- the weekly newsletter of ParaScope

S O M E T H I N G   S T R A N G E   I S   H A P P E N I N G

6/10/99

Quote of the Week

"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach
you to keep your mouth shut."

--- Ernest Hemingway
-----------------------

Rant of the Week: �Non-Random Shootings of the New Moon�

Every week we pick the wackiest, scariest, nastiest or funniest rant from the
deluge of letters received by us here at ParaScope headquarters, and present
it to you as our Rant of the Week. This week, N-Ram shares a theory on how
recent high school shootings are part of an elaborate plan. Enjoy.

"All school killings part of larger plan. Here are the recent attacks:

1. Pearl, Miss. 10-1-97
2. Paducah, Ky. 12-1-97
3. Jonesboro, Ark. 3-24-98
4. Edinboro, Pa. 4-24-98
5. Fayetteville, Tenn. 5-19-98
6. Springfield, Ore. 5-21-98
7. Notus, Idaho 4-16-99
8. Littleton, Col. 4-20-99

"Using as straight edge ruler and map I found a perfect line
between #1, 6, and 8, with 7 slightly above the line. If we make
a line from 6 to 7 that line will continue to Ark. And cross #3
in Jonesboro Ark. A perfect line also exists between 3, 2, and
4... # 5 seems to fall outside these patterns. But # 5 does not
belong to them because it was not a random killing, it was a boy
shooting another boy over a girl friend.

"Thus we have 3 lines and 7 killings lined up perfectly on the
lines. These are not RANDOMLY PLACED and hence they are not
random incidents.

"Now if you are of a spiritual bent you might suspect angels,
demons, or such like. If you are of a bad-alien bent, you might
suspect little green men. If you are of a scientific bent you
would be forced to suspect HUMAN PLANNING. Now most governments
of the world would not be so foolish as to plan such crimes in
straight lines. Thus we would be forced to suspect
religious/occult groups. These might have a connection to a
government, as in infiltration.

"BUT THERE IS MORE!

"Of the incidents: #1, 2, 4, 7 all took place during the exact
time of the NEW MOON. #3, 6, and 8 took place 2 to 4 days on
either side of the NEW MOON. New Moons played key roles in many
ancient religions and occult groups, even the Bible. Number 7
seems to have failed when the boy was discovered before he shot
anyone. Number 8 seems to be the SECOND attempt to meet the New
Moon goal.

"These shootings ARE NOT RANDOM, and are hence PLANNED

"I am posting this all over the world to save my ars."

------

All rants are printed �as is,� with spelling and grammar goofs
left uncorrected. Some rants may be edited for brevity or
clarity, to the extent such a thing is possible. If you�ve got a
rant you�d like to share, send it to pscplady@aol.com with
�possible rant� in the subject line of your letter.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Coming Up Soon on ParaScope!

Catch a number of great stories this week on the ParaScope web
site, including regular updates to our Conspiracy Newsline, UFO
Roundup and Daily Dose features.

The Paper Trail: Where the Concealed is Revealed
All-New Edition at http://www.parascope.com/ds/papertrail/index.htm

When talking behind closed doors, Richard Nixon didn't mince
words. His secret White House taping system recorded ample proof
that this president was willing to speak his fears, profanities
and illegal orders loud and clear. Now a another batch of
unheard Nixon tapes has been released -- and word for word
transcripts are in the new Paper Trail. Other key stories this
month: Nixon aide Henry's Kissingers intimate diplomatic
conversations are finally on the record in a new book; and a
recent report by Guatemala's truth commission explicitly names
the CIA as a moving force in decades of repression by state
security forces. It's all new, all declassified, and all in the
Paper Trail.

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

Fortean Slips: Edition #33!

Enigma editor D. Trull brings us an all-new batch of zany
reports from the paranormal fringe.

A Kinder, Gentler Satan: The Roman Catholic Church has revised
its official views on the nature of Old Scratch, and this
particular overhaul of foul wickedness is far from being your
average P.R. con job.

The Bra of Nostradamus: Yes, ladies, there is now special
lingerie custom-designed for the End Times!

Aliens Chewing the Fat: A crass advertising campaign has cast
EBE's and the obese as mortal enemies, kicking off intergalactic
hostilities of hefty
proportions.

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

ParaScope Newsline
http://www.parascope.com/articles/cnews/index.htm

Navy Jet Illegally Fired Depleted Uranium Ammunition at Puerto
Rico Test Range

On February 19, 1999, a Marine Harrier fighter jet illegally
fired 267 25mm shells tipped with depleted uranium at a practice
range on Vieques Island in Puerto Rico, according to a recent
disclosure.

Depleted uranium (DU) is an extremely dense metal used to
reinforce large-caliber bullets and shells, allowing the
projectiles to penetrate armor. However, shell impact produces a
dust cloud of toxic particles laden with radioactive uranium
oxide. Airborne particles can be carried by the wind for several
miles. If ingested or inhaled, these particles cause a wide
range of dangerous health effects. Medical researchers have
linked DU to Gulf War Illness, which has plagued tens of
thousands of U.S. veterans. (A-10 "Warthog" gunships fired
nearly one million DU rounds during the Gulf War, and DU
munitions were widely used by U.S. forces during that conflict.)

The Vieques Island incident has raised serious public health
concerns and has led to new calls for the Navy to halt its
military exercises on the island, which has been used as a
training ground since World War II. (The fighter jet involved in
the incident was stationed on the U.S.S. Kearsarge, which is
currently participating in the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia.
NATO forces are reportedly using depleted uranium munitions as
part of "Operation Allied Force.")

The cancer rate on Vieques Island is more than twice the average
cancer rate among the people of Puerto Rico. For years,
politicians and activists have pointed to the Navy's activities
there as the cause of the disproportionate cancer rate.

"Only 57 of the 267 depleted uranium shells [fired at Vieques
Island] were recovered by Navy clean-up personnel, indicating
that more than 200 may have exploded," according to the
Associated Press. Each of the 25mm shells contains a third of a
pound of DU. Potentially as much as 70 pounds of depleted
uranium particles may have become airborne and been carried by
prevailing winds into inhabited areas of the island, home to
9,300 Puerto Ricans.

According to Tara Thornton of The Military Toxics Project, "They
fired enough to poison every man, woman and child on the island
420 times over." (Thornton filed a Freedom of Information Act
request which led to the Vieques revelation.)

Sen. Eudaldo Baez Galib of the opposition Popular Democratic
Party demanded medical testing for all residents of eastern
Puerto Rico, and noted that a wind shift could have carried the
particles to the nearby U.S. Virgin Islands. Under Nuclear
Regulatory Commission guidelines, automatic health testing is
required for inhalation of as little as 0.01 grams of depleted
uranium.

The Navy claims that Puerto Rican officials were advised
promptly of the "accidental" DU firing. But according to an
Associated Press report, Puerto Rican Gov. Pedro Rossello's
office was not notified, and Secretary of State Norma Burgos was
skeptical of the Navy's claims of disclosure. "This is
information we have to verify because it wouldn't surprise me if
it were more incorrect information, another lie," Burgos said.

The use of DU ammunition in the February 19 incident was a
violation of federal and local laws, as well as Navy
regulations, the Associated Press reported.

Sources: Michelle Faul, "Puerto Rico Disputes Navy Assertion,"
Associated Press, May 28, 1999; Michelle Faul, "Navy Admits
Firing Uranium Shells," Associated Press, June 2, 1999.


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Jane, Stop This Crazy Thing!

Thought you were tough enough to handle the Dispatch and now you
realize you're not? Starting to think you've made a wrong turn
off the info highway? Well, we're only going to go over this
once, so listen up!

To unsubscribe yourself from Dispatch:

1) Send e-mail to: listserv@listserv.aol.com

2) In the body of your mail, type: unsubscribe dispatch

That's all there is to it!

Likewise, to subscribe:

1) Send e-mail to: listserv@listserv.aol.com

2) In the body of your mail, type: subscribe dispatch

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

ParaScope
11288 Ventura Blvd., #904
Studio City, CA 91604

America Online -- keyword: parascope
parascope@aol.com

World-Wide Web -- http://www.parascope.com





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                   The Max Burns BUFORA Lecture - A Review

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:52:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:09:41 -0400
Subject: The Max Burns BUFORA Lecture - A Review


Remember the "Sheffield Incident"?

For some time now we have been waiting with baited breath for
the appearance of Max Burns on the hard fought platform he had
won in the name of free speech on the BUFORA lecture platform in
London.

For more than two years now Max has promised us major new
revelations about his claims that an ET Triangle or what is now
known as an "FT" (no, not Fortean Times, 'flying triangle'
silly!) was engaged in a hostile encounter with a UFO over the
Peak District - leading to what Max claims was the loss of an
Tornado F3 interceptor and the deaths of at least one of its
crew.

I made a decision not to comment further on the case some
months ago, having posted my 20,000 word report and
conclusions on the Internet, unless some new evidence was
forthcoming.

Henceforth I waited....and waited... and waited.

Trumpeted by its BUFORA promoters as the opportunity to answer
to all the critics, and the event at which - wait for it - the
"scientific evidence"  to back up Max's amazing and earth
shattering claims would finally be revealed.... it promised a
lot.

But what did we get?

Well around 35 people turned up to hear Max's history-making
claims at a prime venue in central London, and not one member of
the Press! All this despite BUFORA's Malcolm Robinson faxing
half the capital's press and even handing out leaflets to
tourists in central London.

Who knows, perhaps a D-Notice had been served on the entire UK
Press and even tourists too, it being such a fantastic case and
all.

Max Burns himself appeared in his best Burtons suit, fresh from
having made a miraculous recovery from a particularly nasty bout
of food poisoning which, two weeks earlier, had prevented his
appearance before a Crown Court Judge in Sheffield just minutes
before his trial was due to go ahead.

Odd that isn't it, seeing as Burns had repeatedly stated that
nothing would prevent his appearance before a BUFORA audience on
June 5 - not even an appearance before a jury, it seems.

What did we learn from the lecture?  Precisely naff all, seeing
as most of it seemed to be a rip-off from material written by
"another researcher" who must remain nameless (guess who?)
interspersed with long passages read directly from Max's own
completely discredited Sheffield "Flying Triangle" incident
report.

Of particular amusement were a series of bizarre and fantastic
claims which I will now deal with point by point, illustrating
once again how vivid Max's imagination really is and how shoddy
his research has been: (not to mention how gullible anyone in
the audience must be who took this nonsense as approximate to
any kind of fact)

MAX CLAIM 1: That one of two RAF Spokesman extensively quoted in
my Howden Report does not exist (ergo I have made him up). The
evidence for this assertion?

"Jerry Anderson (of an Essex UFO group) has assured me that he
had searched all the MOD lists and assures me one of the people
named does not exist."

THE FACTS:  The two people named are RAF Public Relations
Officer Allan Patterson and Flight Lieutenant Tom Rounds. Both
most certainly do exist and are both at this very moment serving
in Kosovo with Britain's K4 group. Patterson is a Senior
Civilian Press Officer with the Defence Exports Services
Organisation, Whitehall, while Flt Lieut Rounds is the senior
Press Officer on the RAF Press Desk at Whitehall. Both can be
contacted directly on the Main MOD switchboard when they return,
just dial 0171 218 3253 ask for RAF Press Desk Patterson left
the RAF Press desk for a new job elsewhere in the MOD at the end
of 98. But then any investigator who had regular contact with
the RAF, as I do, and had done a good job on this case would
know these facts? Apparently not, but it makes a good conspiracy
story doesn't it?

Pity about the facts!  Either way, I'm sure Allan will be amused
to hear he dosen't exist next time I phone him.

MAX CLAIM 2:  Max now claims the Tornado F3 destroyed by ET/UFO
action over the Peak was an Italian NATO aircraft, and that it
came from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire. Burns bases his
conclusion on a third-hand source who told another researcher he
saw six Tornadoes leaving the base at 20.45. These aircraft were
undoubtedly scrambled to pursue a UFO, despite the fact there
was a low-flying operation underway that night - so he claims.
By a bizarre twisting of the facts and figures, Max works out
that two of these aircraft did not return. He then told the
audience he had in fact written to RAF Coningsby asking to see a
copy of the entire flight log for the night of March 24, 1997
and stating his conviction that one of their Tornado aircraft
had crashed in the Peaks on that night!

THE FACTS:  I obtained special permission from the base
commander to access the flight log for Coningsby earlier this
year. The log clearly shows that four Tornaodes took off and
four returned safely to the base at 2125 that night following a
routine exercise over the North Sea. The interesting fact is
that today I contacted Caroline Hogg, the base Public Relations
Officer who deals with all inquiries to Coningsby. Had the base
received a letter from one Max Burns asking to access the log,
and making a claim about a crashed aircraft?

"Not to my knowledge," she said after recovering from laughter.
"And I deal with all members of the public who contact the
base." In my presence she searched all correspondence logs since
1997 (the base PRO keeps meticulous records of all letters
received) and the only person to have contacted the base about
the March 24, 1997, incident was - surprise, surprise,  David
Clarke. So what are we to make of Max's claim to have contacted
the base? He's making very serious claims about the loss of an
aircraft and the lives of its crew, and yet he is such a good
investigator he has apparently made no effort to even ask those
who he claims are directly involved!

Does that not suggest that he doesn't quite believe it himself,
not to the extent that he could remove himself from the Internet
and actually write a real letter to a real person?

Isn't it far easier just to claim he has done, because he knows
all the poor saps listening will just believe what he says without
question?

MAX CLAIM 3: That the British MOD have lied to an elected MP,
Helen Jackson, when they said in a Parliamentary written answer
that the Ministry had received no reports of UFOs on March 24,
1997. As the South Yorkshire Police log contains at least one
"UFO" report - the obvious conclusion to Max is that the reply
is a lie.

THE FACTS: As Lionel Beer pointed out at the BUFORA Lecture,
police reports go to the Home Office, who control the police,
not to the MOD. In this particular case, the police classified
all the entries in their log as relating to a "suspicious low
flying aircraft" incident, NOT as a UFO, therefore there was no
reason why they should have been reported to the MOD.

The obvious conclusion is that the MOD did not lie to Jackson,
because they did not receive any reports of UFOs, only
low-flying aircraft (13 in all, admitted in Parliament).

These facts go straight over the top of Max's head: he just
cannot understand the very basic fact that the police never
treated the "Sheffield Incident" as a UFO case.

Only Max is responsible for turning this non-case into a fully
fledged UFO myth.

MAX CLAIM 4:  That Jonathon Dagenhart - the infamous Tornado
co-pilot who ejected and was seen on the Peak road covered in
"aviation fuel" - had been pressurised by the RAF to retract his
story.

THE FACTS:  The BUFORA audience - not known for their
objectiveness in the first instance - found this yarn
particularly hard to swallow, and with good reason. Max's claims
about this man - a unfortunate soul who had tried to take his
own life that night, but became an unwitting pawn in a UFO
believer's fantasy - just do not stand up to scrutiny, and even
the hardcore believers were having their doubts. Max desperately
tried to justify his claims at the BUFORA lecture by saying if
he was not the co-pilot, why had so much pressure been put on
him to retract the story?

The facts are that no pressure has ever been placed on
Dagenhart. The man went to his superiors at the RAF himself to
ask for help when his innocent testimony about a
Pakistani-looking man he seen on a road was hijacked by a
nutcase and was about to be splashed all over the News of the
World.

Wouldn't you be worried, breathless and nearly crying if you
found yourself in the same position? And to paraphrase Peter
Brooksmith,  how many Pakistani pilots/co-pilots are there of
RAF Tornadoes which fly from RAF Coningsby?

I smell something funny here, and it's not aviation fuel.

MAX CLAIM 4: That there is a Government D-Notice in place
preventing the entire of the UK Media from running any stories
about " the Sheffield Incident."  The evidence for this
incredible assertion?  Well Marc Bell of the Woolwich UFO Centre
in London was going on a radio show in the capital to talk about
UFOs, and was asked by staff what subject he was going to talk
about. Well, the Sheffield Incident of course! Whereupon, he was
immediately told under no circumstances was he to discuss that
case. THE FACTS:  Well come on guys and gals, does this nonsense
really merit a  reply?

Other than the fact that the chances of any radio journalist in
Sheffield, let alone London, having heard of the "Sheffield
Incident" (as apart from the real search for a supposed crashed
aircraft) are pretty slim.

In fact the D-Notice secretary at the MOD will give any bona
fide caller advice on any subject area which falls under any
Government restrictions (and this is advice only for editors -
not law). I can assure you that Max's lurid fantasies about this
case do not fall under this category!

MAX CLAIM 5: That the Bolide meteor explanation for this case
"was the original explanation/cover-story" put out by the
MOD/Authorities.

THE FACTS: Nowhere have the MOD or RAF ever suggested that a
Bolide meteor was responsible for this case. That fact is made
perfectly clear in my Howden Moor report, of which Max has a
copy. The Bolide explanation was suggested by the British
Geological Survey and the Royal Astronomical Society as an
explanation for the sonic booms and the lights in the sky seen
that night.

It is not a scenario ever suggested by the MOD - and Max knows
this is the case.

So why perpetuate lies?

MAX CLAIM 6: That the first sonic boom recorded by the BGS in
the Sheffield area that night at 2152 "was the Tornado jet
exploding" after being "zapped" by the UFO, and that the second
boom at 2206 was caused by the UFO escaping from the area after
the foul deed!

THE FACTS: Utter nonsense. The British Geological Survey had
stated on the record and unequivocably that both sonic events
recorded that night were caused by sonic booms - that is, air
blasts caused by objects breaking the speed of sound - NOT by a
ground impact or an aircraft exploding in mid-air. Senior
seismologist Glenn Ford has stated the only possible cause of
these events was a military aircraft breaching the sound
barrier, possibly while performing a mid-air turn over land.

As we know there was a covert, low-flying exercise over the Peak
shortly before these two events, it seems more than likely this
was indeed the cause. Naughty pilots, not hostile ETs I'm
afraid!

MAX CLAIM 7 (don't worry, this is the last one). That the 141
civilian mountain rescue teams scrambled to search the Howden
Moors that night "were told to concentrate on an area four miles
away" from the site of the "real" crash which was being quietly
covered up by Blue Beret types in a military land-rover.

This information came from the wife of the gamekeeper at
Strines, who told Max her husband was stopped from going onto
his land by the police and had an offer of helping them with the
search turned down.

Basically, Max is saying that over a hundred highly trained and
highly experienced Mountain Rescue personnel, from seven
seperate teams, all of whom are civilians who have not signed
the Official Secrets Act, were deliberately sent to the wrong
area of the moor to conduct a fruitless search while the
MiIlitary Industrial Complex removed the evidence of aliens
under their very nose?

THE FACTS:  Max has never contacted the MRS Team involved during
the two years he claims he has put into this investigation.

In my book that would have been the very first place to start -
as it should any investigator worth his or her salt!

If he had done, as I have, he would have found there was no
possible way the MRS could have been "sent" to wrong area of
moor, simply because it was the MRS who were organising the
search - NOT the police!

It was the civilian mountain rescue members who decided, based
upon the bearings taken from the witnesses who saw the
low-flying plane, to search almost 50 square miles of moor. They
directed the pilots of the two helicopters (police and RAF) from
the ground and from the air throughout and thoroughly searched
all the possible areas that an aircraft could have crashed.

MRS Team Leader that night Mike France has said there was no
possible way his experienced men could have missed the wreckage
of a Tornado jet or any other aircraft.

As for suggestions that they had been sent to search the wrong
moor etc he responded:

"Utter rubbish, the gamekeeper's wife does not know what she is
talking about. We had at least 50 to 60 men searching the
Strines Moor area from early on - all was thoroughly searched
and we found nothing."

As a measure of how reliable the gamekeepers' wifes testimony
is, she also claimed in her statement to Max that the land was
"privately owned by a former Whitehall man with links to the
SAS".  In fact, Strines forest is owned by Steven Hastings, a
former Tory MP who is married to the daughter of the Earl
Fitzwilliam.

As for her husband Mick not being allowed to take part in the
search, he actually went out in a police landrover with PC Mick
Hague to help the initial search of the moors, and is quoted as
saying so on the Granada TV documentary on the case screened
earlier this year! So much for that load of nonsense!!

So - time and time again, Max's wild claims about this case do
not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. One lie follows another,
and it appears that he is completely incapable of saying
anything which is remotely accurate.

Nothing new has been presented at the BUFORA lecture - just the
same old rubbish.

His investigation of what he calls "the Sheffield Flying
Triangle Incident" has been completely discredited in every
detail, and yet still he cannot bring himself to accept this was
not a UFO case.

BUFORA, and in particular its current crop of suits, have
encouraged this farago of nonsense despite having the true facts
at their disposal, and have brought nothing but ridicule and
shame upon a once respectable association as a result, losing
their Press Officer, Director of Investigations and Journal
Editor in the process.

But, as always, Max has to have some new evidence that is always
tantalisingly within his grasp.

Lets hope it can answer these basic questions I asked two years
ago and ask again: 1. What is the name of the Tornado pilot who
died as a result of ET action?  2. From what base did the plane
fly? 3. Name one witness who saw an FT shoot down a pursuing
Tornado that night.

Methinks we will still be waiting for an answer from Max in the
year 2097 if we live that long. Meanwhile, check out the true
facts about this classic case of misidentification and mythology
in the making on:

http://www.pufori.org/articles/howden_moor/index_nf.htm

and

http://www.pufori.org/articles/howden_moor/index.htm

and






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                           Filer's Files #23 1999

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:21:24 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:55:35 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #23 1999


Filer's Files #23 --1999,  MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer,   Mutual UFO Network Eastern Director,
June 11, 1999,  Majorstar@aol.com  (609) 654-0020

Professor Hermann Oberth, the German rocket expert is considered
to be one of the fathers of the space age.  In 1955, Dr. Von
Braun invited him to the US to work at the Army Ballistic
Missile Agency and later NASA where he researched UFO
propulsion.  Oberth stated, "It is my thesis that flying saucers
are real and that they are space ships from another solar
system.  I think that they are possibly manned by intelligent
observers who are members of a race that may have been
investigating our earth for centuries.  I think that they
possibly have been sent out to conduct systematic, long range
investigations, first of men, animals, vegetation and more
recently of atomic centers, armaments and centers of armament
production."  "Flying Saucers Come From A Distant World"
American Weekly, 10/24/54

CONNECTICUT

BRIDGEPORT -- Skywatch International reports that on June 2,
1999, a large dark gray triangle was observed at 9:53 PM.   A
friend saw an object from his house 2 to 3 miles away.  The
witness reports, "I was on the phone and saw a large gray
triangle object appear below cloud cover.  When it first
appeared the UFO displayed two large white lights, that went
dark and were replaced by three red lights on its edges.  One of
the red lights had a flutter to it.  The object the size of a
747 aircraft.  The rear of the triangle had one half a circle
area cut out of it.  It moved from the northeast, and made an
abrupt turn to the East without making any noise.  The object
followed the power lines in area for almost four minutes.  While
the object was visible the family dog was agitated and barking.
The weather was partly cloudy.  The object appeared solid and
was as bright as a star.  Thanks to Skywatch International Inc.

CROMWELL -- On June 4, 1999, I was driving east looking towards
the rising sun at 5:30 AM.  There was a huge brilliant white
object hovering in the sky. I normally turn off on a ramp that
brings me to Route 9 and north to Hartford, but I drove straight
towards the object and the center of Cromwell. At first I was
sure it was the morning star, but I knew the object was too
large and bright for a star.  I observed it for a few minutes
more and became bored.  So I decided to leave, when the object
suddenly shot straight up and was gone.  I was wondering if
anyone else saw it?  This is the third time I have seen a craft
like this in the Middlesex, County area.  Thanks to Dean Burgess
djburgess@snet.net.

NEW JERSEY DISC SIGHTED

TRENTON -- Ron De Baecke called me to report his sighting on
June 7, 1999, of a huge disc shaped unidentified flying object
hovering in the sky.  He is a retired Army aircraft mechanic and
has worked around aircraft most of his life.  He and his wife
Patricia were driving north on Route 130 near Bordentown, when a
shiny bright object caught their attention in the clear blue sky
at 7:30 PM.  The object appeared to be solid and manufactured
with a shiny metal surface.  There were no lights visible on the
craft.  It was positioned roughly over Trenton, the state
capital.  Ron estimated the disc to be the size of a football
field.  Although, there was no other aircraft to help estimate
the exact size of the craft, both he and his wife felt the UFO
was huge.  They drove under some trees along the highway and
when they could view the open sky again the craft had
disappeared.  It was just hovering and then it was gone.  Ron
stated, "It was so big that others must have seen the craft,
this is why we decided to make the report."  Until this sighting
they were not believers in UFOs.  Thanks to Ron De Baecke. Visit
our New NJ MUFON website at:
http://www.contrailconnection.com/njmufon/index.htm

ELMER -- On June 10, 1999, Linda Shirley reports seeing a UFO or
more specifically lights  over South Jersey.  I thought at first
I was seeing a very bright star in the late afternoon at early
dusk.  Linda says she saw the lights for only twenty seconds,
they were hovering in the air.  The lights were bright orange,
round, and very bright.  Then from a dead stop it descended all
the way to the ground, at least it appeared to go to ground
because I lost it behind the trees.  When it started a direct
descent I knew it was not a star.  This is the first time I saw
one in the daytime.  Thanks to Linda Shirley of Elmer.

WANAQUE RESERVOIR -- Jim Cleary of New Jersey Sighting's Website
has been investigating the recent action at the Wanaque
Reservoir.  He interviewed Mike who has always been interested
in UFO's and stated, "What I've seen at the Reservoir at this
point could fill a 200 page notebook.  One time I went with some
friends, and usually what we see is numerous lights just kind of
sitting there in the sky.  They are just above the horizon,
fading or intensifying in luminosity and ever so slowly
ascending or descending in position.  But this time the lights
are all sitting there, and I noticed off to our left in the sky
is a light.  I say to them "Hey check it out. There is one over
there, and it turned off."  Then I look right and I saw the
light, but as I went to speak it shut off.  So we were
surrounded. That was interesting that time!  As I said before
usually its just lights that sit above the horizon and either
fade in or out or go slowly up or down.  If you are not patient
you can easily be bored, as my friends often do.  Cleary asks,
"Would you characterize the lights you have seen mechanical
craft of some type or do you think the lights are some types of
visible energy phenomena caused by the Ramapoo fault?"  Mike
said, "There is no way I could tell for sure if they are either
craft or energy, but from what I have observed it is my opinion
that they are mechanical craft."  Cleary asks, "Wanaque has many
legends of strange things going on. Are you aware of any of
them?"  Mike stated, "DuPont has been in Wanaque since at least
the 60's.  There were a lot of incredible UFO sightings,
including one where the UFO actually went into the Reservoir and
didn't come out for a week.  The Governor went to the schools
and held town meetings saying that it was an asteroid.  Thanks
to Jim Cleary at New Jersey Sightings:

TEXAS

LAKE LEWISVILLE -- Amy Hebert reports that on June 6, 1999, I
was in my back yard helping my daughter check on her turtle in
our pond.  I looked up to the west while talking with my
daughter and noticed three, large, bright white lights in a row
(horizontal) flying to the west at a steady speed at 1:10 PM. I
assumed it was an airplane but something seemed strange about
the three white lights.  I kept watching it while talking to my
daughter. Then suddenly three bright red lights emerged from the
left side of the three white lights and flew south faster than
an airplane would fly.  The three bright white lights continued
to fly off to the west until I lost sight of it behind the
trees.  The first object or the three white lights would have
been over Lake Lewisville about the time the three red lights
emerged.  The three white lights were very bright and unusually
big as were the three red lights that were a very, very bright
red.  The lights were not flashing or strobing.  The lights were
larger than a dime held at arm's length.  Thanks to Amy Hebert:
yelorose@swbell.net.

NEW MEXICO IS INVESTIGATING COW DEATHS

QUESTA -- Brendan Smith writes, No one is sure what killed a
calf and two cows last month on the Tres Ritos Ranch, but ranch
manager Tom Reed definitely finds the deaths unusual.  The last
cow was found dead May 23, 1999, in a pasture near where a dead
calf and a dead cow were found earlier in the month, Reed said.
The last cow had its udder cleanly cut off and a deep hole with
smoothly cut edges gouged into its neck.  Each of the three
animals had unexplained wounds and missing body parts, Reed
said.  The 8th Judicial District Attorney's Office takes cattle
mutilations seriously, although no one has ever been charged
with the crime, Assistant District Attorney John Day said.
Dozens of reported cattle mutilations in northern New Mexico
dating back to the 1970s have spawned theories about aliens sent
to Earth to slice up cows.  Gabe Valdez, a retired State Police
officer who has investigated cattle mutilations near Dulce, said
he is working with the District Attorney's Office in
investigating the recent cattle deaths.  Valdez is now a field
investigator for the National Institute for Discovery Science, a
private organization that has volunteered to pay for necropsies
and lab tests on the dead cattle.  The institute, based in Las
Vegas, Nev., researches cattle mutilations, UFOs and reported
encounters with aliens.  Reed found the first dead cow on May 4
in a pasture on the 3,200 acre Tres Ritos Ranch. The cow's right
eye and right ear were missing with a circular cut around the
right ear extending down the neck, Reed said.  "There were no
tracks where she was injured or hurting and dragged herself
around,"  Reed said, "She was just there."  The calf was found
dead four days later in the same area.  The calf's right eye,
tongue, and rump were missing and the genital area had been cut
open, Reed said.  The New Mexico Livestock Board investigated
about 30 cattle mutilations in northern New Mexico in 1993 and
1994.  The Livestock Board concluded most of the mutilations
were not caused by predators or scavengers, but there was
"possible involvement of clandestine Satanic groups."  The
institute has researched about a dozen unexplained cattle deaths
in New Mexico or Utah, over the past 3 years, Kelleher said.
After conducting necropsies and lab tests, some of those cattle
deaths were determined to be caused by infectious disease,
accidental poisoning from insecticides, or the work of predators
or scavengers.  "There are a small handful of mysterious cases
for which there are no logical explanations," Kelleher said.
Albuquerque Journal, 6/9/99

UNITED KINGDOM

HOOTON -- John Hayes received this sighting report.  The witness
stated, "I am from England and on the 2nd of May this year, I
saw a blue light above Hooton Leviet near Maltby near Rotherham.
It was about 1:00 AM and I was camping in Kings Wood near by and
it was just hovering above Hooton.  There was no noise and then
it moved left and then right and then it was gone.  Thanks to:
John Hayes  jhayes@cableinet.co.uk webmaster@ufoinfo.com

SHETLAND ISLANDS RADAR SEES UFO

RAF SAXA VORD -- A retired Royal Air Force radar operator
reports a strange UFO was captured on RAF radar in the winter of
1964-1965.  Dave Ledger of UFO Scotland reports that he recently
spoke (for the record) with an ex RAF member who was once based
at the northern most Early Warning Radar tracking station at RAF
Saxa Vord.  The case was also documented by the Royal Air Force.
Radar Operators observed a stationary return on their "Type 84"
early warning radar, that gained their interest and curiosity.
The flying object was observed sitting motionless at a height of
approximately 20,000 feet by a "Type 13" radar height finder
system.  The radar return was a very strong signal that showed
up clearly on the radar as a "real structured object."  What
caused immediate concern was that this particular object could
not be readily identified by the personnel on duty.  This was
during the "cold war," so the personnel had to assume that this
anomalous radar return was an incoming hostile craft.  It was
now approaching the North coast of Scotland from a northeasterly
direction.  There was no reply from the IFF (identification
friend or foe system) so the unknown was treated by the on duty
personnel as a hostile, possibly Russian.  The unknown object
slowly continued to approach toward the Scottish coast.  An QRA
alert was sent to the nearest interceptor base at RAF Leuchars
in Fife.  They scrambled two English Electric Lightning fighter
aircraft to intercept and identify the incoming threat.  The two
Lightnings were vectored, via the ground controllers, towards
the incoming bogey.  As they approached the unknown, it became
aware of the interceptors and climbed vertical, rapidly,
directly up and up until it was lost on the height finder radar
at about 100,000 feet.  The two radar operators just looked at
each other, shook their heads and said "NO!"  It is a well-known
fact that no known aircraft on this planet at that time, had the
capability of climbing to this altitude.  The anomaly was
definitely exhibiting intelligent control and was in his honest
opinion:  "Not one of ours!"  These could have not been
erroneous ground returns as this incident took place over the
North Sea.  The interceptors got nowhere near their targets but
the whole incident still remains unexplained.  Thanks to Dave
Ledger UFO Scotland.  Editor's Note: I had a similar intercept
experience over England while flying for the US Air Force.  When
we got close, a hovering UFO also climbed at an astonishing
rate.

HIGHEST GREENHOUSE GASES EVER

Rick Callahan an Associated Press writer reports.  A
two-mile-long ice core laboriously drilled out of an Antarctic
ice sheet shows that levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases
are higher now than at any time in the past 420,000 years.  As
the longest ice core record of Earth's weather history obtained
to date, the core also shows that those gases -- carbon dioxide
and methane -- play a big role in warming the planet when ice
ages end.  But how this icy record will influence current theory
about global warming blamed on human activity is not clear, the
researchers said.  The ice core gives us the past, not the
future.  "It's clear that greenhouse gas levels are
unprecedented compared with the previous 400,000 years.''  The
core was extracted from 1992 to 98 by a U.S.-Russian-French team
at Russia's Vostok research station, the coldest spot on Earth.
They stopped drilling about 120 yards short of a subterranean
lake the size of Lake Ontario that's been trapped for millions
of years beneath the ice sheet.  Scientists want to send
sterilized robots to explore the pristine lake and are
protecting it from contamination until then.  The new core
reveals four ice ages at roughly 100,000-year intervals.  All
four appear to have given way to balmier times after levels of
the heat-trapping gases carbon dioxide and methane rose by
amounts smaller than the increase blamed on human industry in
the past century.  The multinational team reported its findings
in the June 3 issue of the Journal Nature.  They found carbon
dioxide levels rose from 180 parts per million during each ice
age's height to 280-300 ppm in the subsequent warm periods.
This is far below the current CO2 levels of 360 ppm.  Methane
levels rose from 320-350 parts per billion during the icy
interludes to 650-770 ppb during the warm spells.  Current
methane levels are 1,700 ppb.  The levels of both greenhouse
gases are expected to continue their rise due to continued
burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.  This study
is the most persuading evidence to date that humans are making
really large changes to Earth's climate system,'' said Jonathan
Overpeck, at the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder.
Thanks to Albuquerque Journal,
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/6news06-09.htm

AUSTRALIA

BBC News Online Science Editor, Dr. David Whitehouse reports
that: One of the most powerful searches for aliens in space is
about to begin from Australia.  It will simultaneously listen to
58 million radio channels.  "The instrument is one of the most
powerful in the world and it's going to sift the skies to look
for artificial signatures from other intelligent civilizations,
should they exist," says Dr. Frank Stootman, Chairman of SETI
(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Australia and
Co-director of the Southern Serendip Project.  "This is a very
significant experiment that will contribute to testing some
important scientific paradigms about the origin and development
of self-conscious life in the universe," he added.  Right time,
right place The search for ET will use the Parkes telescope in
New South Wales.  The SETI Center has increased the number of
radio channels it can listen to simultaneously from eight
million to a staggering 58 million channels.  Thanks to the BBC
6/9/99.

RUSSIA

ROSTOV-NA-DONU -- The UFO looked at first like Venus, but was
much larger than any planet or star and it moves!"  A Russian
girl has filmed a possible UFO on a camcorder and the film was
shown in a direct report to the Russian evening news ("RTV"-
Moskva "Russian TV" on June 2, 1999.  According to a student at
Rostov-na-Donu University, the UFO had a bright spherical form
and was transforming in shape from time to time on the
television monitored in Lithuania.  Zoomed in video of the UFO
were shown on Russian television.  The announcer asked "Whether
the UFO could be viewed at this time?"  The girl responded, "UFO
is at its former place, I see it."  The mysterious has been
observed by city inhabitants nightly for the last three days.
Thanks to Anatoly Kutovoy, kutovoj@mail.iae.lt  who translated
especially for Filer's Files.

1952, AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE STUDY IS REVEALING

Joel Carpenter writes that  USAF's Stefan T. Possony was a
visionary theoretician.  He would propose a lot of ideas for the
sake of analysis.  This didn't necessarily mean that because he
committed an idea to paper, he was advocating it.  His Air Force
Intelligence Special Studies Group was organized to look at "out
there" concepts.  The whole point was to consider ideas that
other intelligence components might think were unlikely, if they
even looked at them at all.  His hypothesis about a possible
relationship between UFOs and meteors was just a hypothesis, and
I don't think many scientists took it seriously.  It's very
clear from Possony's other papers that what he really suspected
was that UFOs were Soviet secret weapons.  I wouldn't get hung
up on the statements about cloud seeding, global warming, and
UFOs being a possible threat.  Possony DID think UFOs were a
possible threat - probably from the USSR.  The following Secret
memo to the head of USAF Intelligence is revealing:


SECRET: 1 August 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL SAMFORD
SUBJECT: USAF Interest in Flying Saucers.

At the risk of boring you with a tedious subject, I want to
submit a few ideas which may be helpful in making a proper
decision.  What are the Flying Saucers?  It is a
well-established heuristic principle that the unknown must be
made intelligible by referring to the known.  If we ask the
question: "What known  phenomena bear the greatest similarity to
saucers?"  The answer seems to be that saucer behavior follows
the pattern of electromagnetic phenomena.  Assuming for the time
being, that the saucers are a natural phenomenon of some
electromagnetic kind, and accepting the fact that saucer
phenomena have occurred at infrequent intervals throughout
history, we should inquire as to the cause of the increased
frequency of the occurrence.  (The increase is about 4000-fold
from 19th-century reports, though elimination from current
sightings would tend to reduce this figure).  Since the increase
in sightings started in 1946-7, it may be fruitful to tie the
sightings to events preceding them and of which there were no
counterparts at earlier periods. Prior to the upsurge in saucer
sightings,  the following new activities took place:    1.  The
carrying of radioactive particles into the upper atmosphere by
means  of atomic explosions and production;  2.  The penetration
of the upper atmosphere by guided missiles, new types of
balloons, and perhaps aircraft;  3.  The production of shock
waves at higher altitude, due to the breaching of  the sound
barrier;  4. The increased output in radio and radar signals,
including television;  5. The seeding of clouds for purposes of
weather control;  6.  The great increase in commercial and
private flying.  Moreover, the present era is characterized by a
general "warming up" of the climate in the northern hemisphere.
Furthermore, the solar system may be passing through an area in
the universe where there is a great deal of debris and where,
therefore, an increase in the intensity of the meteoric
bombardment may be expected.

It is probable that flying saucers are not caused by any single one of
these factors, but by a convergence of causes.  If the saucers are really
electromagnetic phenomena, there is a possibility that they are connected
primarily with atomic activities, and that they are caused by the encounter=

of radioactive particles and small meteors.  In other words, they may be
ionized air brought about by the entry of very small meteors into the
atmosphere.  During burn-up of the meteor metal, the natural degree of
ionization may be increased greatly through available radioactive particles,=

with the possible result that after the destruction of the metallic core,
there would be a gaseous rotating ion ball subject to movements in the
atmosphere.  This "interpretation" occurred to me after an illuminating
discussion with General Maxwell, and I emphasize it merely to indicate what=

type of approach the Air Force should take in tackling the phenomena.
Incidentally, there was no temperature inversion in Washington for a long
time, and therefore, the mirage theory does not explain the latest=
 sightings.
 What is the Air Force interest?

1.  The Air Force continuously will be "on the carpet" as long
as no satisfactory explanation can be given.  Should the saucer
activity increase, pressure by the press and even Congress will
be quite considerable.

2.   We cannot yet rule out entirely that saucers do represent a
threat.

3.  If there is any validity to the assumption that the saucers
are partly the result of atomic activity, the phenomenon would
tie in directly with long range detection and if solved, might
lead to an increase in our intelligence capability...

I suggest therefore, that before the ATIC program be undertaken,
a very small panel of scientists be brought together and be
briefed on the documentation which is in the files right now.
Stefan T. Possony.  Thanks to Joel Carpenter for obtaining this
previously classified Air Force Document.

July 2-4, 30th Annual MUFON 1999 International UFO Symposium at
Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel in Arlington Virginia.  E-mail
mufonhq@aol.com

GET THE BEST REALTORS and help me continue to bring these files
to you since my old 486 computer is barely working.  As a
special aid to our readers, I can find you with the best real
estate experts in your area at no cost to you from two of the
largest firms.  When you obtain your own agent, do you really
know their experience level and expertise?  How good a producer
are they?  I can provide you free relocation information and top
agents from the largest and most respected real estate firms.
There is no cost to you.  If you are planning to sell or buy a
home and would like a top flight real estate agent call me at
609 654-0020 or-mail  majorstar@aol.com or.  Please provide your
name, phone #, address, price, and location.

MUFON JOURNAL For more detailed investigative reports subscribe
by writing to 103 Oldtowne Road, Sequin, TX 78155-4099 or E-mail
Mufon@aol.com.  Filer's Files Copyright 1998 by George A. Filer,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post items from the Files on
their Websites provided that they credit the newsletter and its
editor by name and list the date of issue that the item
appeared.  Send your letters to me at Majorstar@aol.com.  If you
wish to keep your name confidential please so state.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                        Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:11:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:55:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture


>From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture
>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:07:54 +0100

>>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>>To: Errol Knapp <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture
>>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:46:21 +0100


>>Max Burns gave his much talked about lecture on Saturday (5th
>>June). The talk was detailed and was constructive, the talk

<snip>

>>Thanks to Malcolm for this one.....


>That "much talked about lecture" only attracted 35 people to a
>venue that holds over 100 in the centre of London. Just shows
>how marginal the lecture was and BUFORA currently is...

>Mike Wootten

If only one person showed up, that has nothing to do with how
good or bad the lecture was. I've been to incredible lectures
with only 15 people in attendance and I've been to aweful
lectures with over 200 people in attendance.

Review the lecture in detail if you're going to knock 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 12

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 14:20:16 PDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:06:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:12:05 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 99 19:38:05 PDT



Dennis,

>>In fact, Maury Island tells us just how
>>honest a guy Arnold was.  To those of us who look back at it, it
>>seems transparently obvious that Crisman and Dahl were lying
>>through their respective chops.

>So much for those statutes of limitation! But I guess nothing
>Arnold said or wrote can be called into question by anyone?

It was the view of on-site investigators, prominently including
the ill-fated Brown and Davidson, that Crisman and Dahl were
pulling a fast one on a naive Arnold.  See, for example,
Ruppelt's account.  The officers actually felt sorry for Arnold
and thus chose not to share their conclusions with him, for fear
of embarrassing the guy.  In short, I am not exactly engaging in
revisionism here.

It was also the view of Air Force investigators, reporters, and
others who interacted with Arnold at the time of his sighting
that he was a straight, sober, reliable guy.  Not to point too
fine a point on it, but: no fruitcake.  I see nothing that
supports a revisionist reading of Arnold's personality. I do see
things that look to me like a trashing of a decent man who
suffered enough already.

>>Arnold was such a straight
>>arrow that it never occurred to him his "witnesses" might not be
>>the same.  Sadly, years of ridicule and harassment led him to a
>>considerably darker view of his fellow humans. I guess we can be
>>happy that he is not around to read this new round of
>>Arnold-bashing.

>>Unlike you, I knew Arnold, who was all he was cracked up to be:
>>sharp, honest, shrewd, conservative, and unimaginative.  Not, in
>>short, a fruitcake by any definition except, I gather, yours.
>>His interest in UFOs as such was long past, but he did take the
>>trouble to answer my questions about various claims attributed
>>to him. One, which first surfaced in a Harold T. Wilkins book,
>>was a supposed quote asserting that Arnold had observed evidence
>>of invisible entities in his home.  He said the story was a
>>flat-out fabrication. He had no idea where it came from.

>Glad to have the information. But if Arnold was really so sharp
>and shrewd, how were Dahl and Crisman able to take him in so
>easily?

I think I've already answered that question.  Arnold was very
sharp at practical matters (which is why he was such a good
observer that fateful June 24), but evidently, in dealing with
pathological liars and other extreme personality types, he was
capable of being fooled -- as indeed any of us can be when we
run into somebody who plays by no discernible ethical rules.
Thus, as I'm sure you agree (though you brought up Maury Island
in the first place, as if it might somehow be relevant to the
sighting question), Maury Island and the Mount Rainier encounter
with still-unexplained objects are two entirely separate
questions.

I might add as a footnote here that in his later years, which is
when I knew him, Arnold had grown bitter and suspicious,
trusting practically nobody.  It was a sad consequence of years
of abuse and harassment.

>I'm sorry you think this is an exercise in nothing more than
>Arnold bashing. History is a process in constant revision. For
>but one example, see the revision of the career of
>anthropologist Margaret Mead. For all I know, she was a
>perfectly remarkable and upstanding person face to face, but
>that doesn't render her immune to error. Arnold, alas, is not
>immune, either.

I guess it's not revisionism as such that I'm objecting to, just
the unpersuasive nature of some of the arguments I've seen in
recent weeks re the Arnold case.  One has the impression with
some correspondents that their real target is not Arnold, who is
just a means to an end, which is the demolition of the UFO
phenomenon generally.    Maybe the theory is that if you kill
the messenger, the message will die, too.


>Arnold claimed he filmed two UFOs, one of which was transparent.
>I asked what happened to the film. If your answer, as a UFO
>historian, is that "we don't know, Arnold never printed any
>stills from the film, nor did he ever, as far as is known, make
>the film publicly available for inspection," then, fine, that's
>history's answer. Cut and print. If your answer is, "I don't
>know, who cares, and on top of that I'm sick of all this Arnold
>bashing, and Stacy quacks like a suspiciously anti-UFO duck in
>the bargain," well, then, _that's_ your (and no doubt Rudiak's)
>answer. Cut and print. The choice is yours.

My choice: full access to everything Arnold had. The reality:
virtually all of it got burned up by the late Mrs. Arnold years
ago. I am not the guy, by the way, to lecture to on this matter,
since some years ago I tried very hard to get access to
everything, including the film, before one of Arnold's daughters
finally told me that the stuff no longer existed.

>The last time I looked, historians had an obligation to the
>truth as it can best be determined, not to choosing sides in a
>perceived squabble.

Well, I'm all in favor of truth, which often forces one to take
sides.  If you think historians don't take sides and pot shots
at each other, you're a lot less intellectually sophisticated
than in fact I know you are.

Incidentally, let me put in a plug for that terrific book
you and Hilary Evans put together.  It's one of the few UFO
books of this decade that people will want to read (or
reread) in decades to come.  It's also one of the relative
handful of 1990s UFOs book not to insult one's intelligence.
You have every right to be proud of it.  I know I'm proud
to be a contributor to it.

Jerry Clark





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                          Re: High Flying Pelicans

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:28:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 13:38:46 -0400
Subject: Re: High Flying Pelicans



>Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:01:40 -0400
>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


In my last message, regarding the PH (pelican hypothesis)
I wrote:


>At the left side of the paper near the middle place a point.
>That is Arnold's starting position.   Let north be "up" on the
>graph paper.   Draw a line from Arnold's starting position at a
>azimith of 15 degrees.   This is approximately the
>direction to Mt. Baker.


The direction to Mt  Baker is approxmately 6 degrees. The 15
degree azimuth must be considered an arbitary starting direction
that is roughly consistent with Arnold's claim that the objects
were first seen "coming from the vicinity of Mt. Baker."





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 12

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:04:15 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:03:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:05:01 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes.


>>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:21:11 -0400
>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@globalserve.net>

>>>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 23:40:42 -0500
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy >dstacy@texas.net>>.Parchment Parachutes

>>Dennis,

>>You suggest that his reliability with respect to later sightings
>>is an indicator of his reliability during his first sighting. >.

>>This is not necessarily true. I have noticed that witnesses
>>sometimes become less reliable in the sense that once they have
>>been "radicalized" by the discovery that there really is
>>something strange "out there" they become more likely to believe
>>that any following sighting they can't explain might be related
>>to the first, i.e., another saucer.>

>Bruce,

>Unlike almost everyone who followed in his wake, Arnold was
>operating without any UFO baggage when he reported his first
>sighting. As best I can tell, he thought he saw high-speed
>military aircraft, not necessarily something interplanetary or
>overly strange "out there.">

>It's only my own personal opinion, but the first Arnold sighting
>has always struck me as being of the nature of almost too good
>to be true. Something exceedingly startling happens, and rather
>than being transfixed or mesmerized by events, Arnold
>immediatley goes into measurement mode. He does everything
>right: notes distant features, pulls out his watch, compares the

>pocket, after first comparing same to a distant DC-4
>(convenient, that), rolls down his window and turns parallel to
>the objects to make sure they're not reflections, etc., each and
>every base covered. Airtight and snap right. All the while
>concerned with flying his own airplane. >

>Can't say it didn't happen that way, just always wondered if it
>really did.


If you read Arnold's letter to the air force you will see that
he thought he was doing no more than any pilot would do. He says
pilots are interested in speeds...and s he thought he would
clock the speed.

Did he do "everything right" while flying the plane?

He said the flying was so smooth he simply trimmed out
the plane on its flight toward Yakima (set adjustments for
speed, altitude) and let it fly itself while he enjoyed the
scenery.

He did this BEFORE the sighting began.

Hence by the
time of th sighting (a few minutes or so after he trimmed out
his plane heading toward Yakima, according to the letter to the
Air Force) it was not necessary for him to pay 100% attention to
flying th airplane.

He could do other things such as wonder about those strange
airplanes way over there flying so close to Mt. Rainier in an
odd echelon arrangement and he could wonder us how fast these
new Army jets could go..... etc.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

               Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same

From: Don Allen <dona@amigo.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:09:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 08:44:39 -0400
Subject: Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same


>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:02:41
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>Subject: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets Of Data

>Source: Wired News,

>http://www.wired.com:80/news/print_version/technology/story/20088.html?wnpg=
>all

>Computer users who are contributing to the SETI (search for
>alien life) project are inadvertently wasting CPU cycles by
>processing data that has already been scanned.

>Due to failures in coping with the overwhelming response from
>volunteers, the SETI@home project has been erroneously sending
>the same packets of radio data to its 500,000 participants.

Thanks for posting this article. It explains why I've been
processing the same packet from a few days ago and also why my
processed units stats haven't been getting updated. I was just
about ready to delete Seti off my machine.

Don


---

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 20:06:44 PDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:30:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting


>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:47:07 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 99 19:38:05 PDT

>>>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:17:16 -0500
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


C'mon, Dennis,

>Corroborative by what standards of corroboration?

>You leave the misleading impression that Johnson saw the exact
>same thing that Arnold did at the exact same time, and in the
>exact same place -- more or less -- thereby confirming and/or
>corroborating Arnold's original account.

>Yet your own account of the Johnson sighting, based on a letter
>he wrote the Air Force two months after the fact (UFO
>Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 141), is full of qualifiers ("they
>may...he could well have seen," etc.). So which is it?

The point remains.  You said there is no corroboration for
Arnold's account, beyond his own  -- to most of us who don't
quack like anti-UFO ducks -- impressive testimony.  You were
wrong. Johnson was at the right time and the right to place to
see Arnold's UFOs.  He thought that he saw Arnold's UFOs, and an
FBI interviewer characterized him as "a very reliable
individual."  (No doubt you know better and will let us know
what a fruitcake and/or sociopath the man was.)  The rest of you
may be interested in a useful discussion of the relationship of
Johnson's testimony to Arnold's; see Bruce Maccabee's article in
IUR, May/June 1995.


>Moreover, ufology is replete with cautionary tales.

Ufology is also replete with puzzling, well-investigated cases
which continue to resist explanation.  One of them is Arnold's.
The sorts of stories you cite below are notable in being so
rare, if one puts them in the context of UFO-reporting
generally.  On the other hand, if one considers that they are
both photographic cases -- which long experience has taught us
are far more likely to be bogus than other sorts of UFO reports,
where hoaxing is relatively infrequent -- they're not rare at
all. To the contrary, the negative resolution of these claims
should not surprise any sophisticated observer.

>Mark Cashman, who I greatly respect, recently revealed in IUR that
>the 1965 (?) Beaver, Pennsylvania, photos were unalduterated
>fakes. Until that time, however, he had the photo(s) on his web
>page, subject to all sorts of luminosity analysis and other
>"corroborative" evidence. The only problem, in the end, was that
>the original account didn't match up with the phenomenon. In
>fact, there was no phenomenon.

>For another instructive story, read physicist Irwin Wieder's
>account of the discovery that the infamous 1966 Willamette Pass,
>Oregon, photo was also a patent hoax. Why did it take so long to
>explain same? Because, as Wieder so bravely admitted, given the
>witness's confirmed credentials, he was perfectly contented to
>remain on automatic pilot, what he referred to as "a pure belief
>mode." Again, the account and the (non-existent in this case)
>phenomenon weren't exactly a one-to-one match up, because,
>again, there was no stimulating phenomenon.

>Does this mean, ipso facto, that Arnold is in the same league?
>Of course not. Does it mean that he _could_ be? I'll leave that
>up to you to decide.

Let's get this straight.  First you were intimating that Arnold
was a fruitcake (or that this is a reasonable possibility).  Now
you're intimating that he's a hoaxer (or that this is a
reasonable possibility).  Which is it?

>By the same token, there's no compelling reason, granted Clark's
>exalted UFO theology (in which witnesses are never confused
>about anything, but always spot on), to argue that Arnold
>shouldn't ascend to ufological sainthood post haste. Hey, the
>guy was only human.

For those of you who need a translation of the above:

If you don't subscribe to the doctrine that UFO witnesses exist
to be trashed, however speciously, you're a theologian.  One
might call this the New New Ufology, or maybe just quack logic.

Jerry Clark







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:30:47 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:45:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold


>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:18:12 -0400
>Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:22:39 -0400
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


Regarding:

>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 21:29:44 -0300
>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>>I've been a bit put off by the impression being floated, by
>>some, that Arnold was some kind of dolt who was frittering
>>around the mountains with no particular idea of where he was,
>>didn't know birds from jets, couldn't estimate distances or work
>>out a speed/time problem, dispite the fact that he would have
>>done them dozens of times during each flight.

>Very much appreciated. It doesn't follow that Kenneth Arnold was
>an idiot if he made an exited, two minute, error of judgement.

Typical Easton vagueness.  What errors of judgment?  Explain IN
DETAIL (not handwaving) how such errors of judgment allow birds
to explain the sighting.

Since Arnold was MOVING at 100 mph+, for anything to fly past
him on a parallel course they have to be flying faster than
this.  Even _extremely gross_ errors in distance estimates or
altitude don't affect this fundamental fact, something Easton
apparently can't get through his head.

So for Arnold to have thought that "pelicans" were flying
forward of his position instead of falling behind him, as they
would have to because of lesser air speed, he would indeed have
been an idiot.

>>I believe that it was Bruce that wondered if birds could fly at
>>6,000 or was it 9,000? feet. My Flight Supplement cautions
>>pilots to watch out for Canada Geese at 32,000 feet when they
>>are migrating. If I remember correctly a DC-3 struck a bird over
>>Mount Everest during WW II while flying the "hump" as they
>>called it.

>I had checked out the altitude probabilities for migrating
>American White Pelicans long ago and it seems they're known to
>reach 14,000 feet during migration.

All very interesting, but hardly relevant.  Above him, below
him, even with him, it doesn't matter.  We're still waiting for
Easton's explanation of how these pelicans outflew Arnold's
plane.   But I'm afraid we're all going to have to wait until
hell freezes over.

>One reference featuring airplanes came from Ann Johnson: "When
>they come migrating through, there are frequently flocks that
>literally disappear from view as they bank and the sun is no
>longer reflecting directly on them. Put the binocs on them and
>there they are. But being a lousy judge of distance, I have no
>idea how high they are. Much higher than the airplanes on
>approach and they are still 10 miles out. You can put the
>numbers on that".

So Easton can put numbers on that, but not Arnold's sighting
from the air with landmarks as references and some
instrumentation for airspeed, direction, and time.

What's a 10 foot wigspan at 10 miles?  Why only .65 minarc,
nothing but a nondescript dot with no features and no appearance
of size.

>>Another observation. We'll probably never know what Arnold saw
>>that day as is true of many other cases..

>Of course, that's exactly what I said in the newsletter.

Uh, the rest of us see you continuing to defend your untenable
pelican theory.

>>.. but I think you are drawing a long bow if you stick with your
>>bird theory James.

>As I've also said before, it's not really my theory, although I
>do think it's a better conceivable explanation than meteors,
>'earth lights', mirages, 'billowing snow clouds', etc.

>What probably isn't saying much as none of these are tenable.

Neither is the pelican theory.

>It's also of course merely an expansion of Martin Kottmeyer's
>theory.

>The difference is that if birds were the explanation, there are
>distinctive similarities between the flight characteristics of
>American White Pelicans and what Arnold described, much more so
>than with Swans, as Kottmeyer proposed.

What's really happening here is that Easton is simply ignoring
every single observation reported by Arnold that disproves a
bird theory.

>He's quite happy with the new suggestion as are many others who
>embrace some scepticism. Doubtless the resident 'Roswell/MJ-
>12/saucer' zealot is not. ;)

So now pointing out fatal errors in others arguments is
"zealotry?"

>"As I wouldn't bother to even read what's a fair bet to be the
>usual diatribe, I'm not in the least interested, even if there's
>some meaningful material amongst the standard drivel.

A perfect description of a Jame's Easton present pelican post.

>Realising that Arnold's long out-of-print book was crucial
>evidence I hadn't seen, I was subsequently able to acquiring a
>copy on loan. It was only on reading this, that the full
>significance of Arnold's later sighting became apparent.

Arnold's first sighting had very little to do with his later
one.  His first one was prolonged, approximately 3 minutes,
plenty of time for Arnold to carefully observe and think about
what he might be seeing.  The comes through clearly in the many
details recounted later, which, among other things, show how
Arnold was going through a mental checklist of conventional
explanations and doing his best to test them.  Opening his
window to check for reflections and timing the objects between
two prominent landmarks were among these.

The second sighting seemingly lasted only a few seconds.  I've
sometimes been puzzled by things I've observed flying when I
first see them, but given 30 seconds, or a minute or two of
observation have been able to figure them out. That's the
difference between a brief glimpse and a fast first impression
vs. more prolonged observation.

Arnold's sighting, BTW, didn't take place in a vacuum.  He
wasn't the only experienced pilot puzzled by multi disk-shaped
objects flying in formation.  Veteran pilot Richard Rankin was
another.  His sighting of 10 objects took place one day earlier
over California.  There was the DC-3 United Airlines sighting of
Cpt. Smith and crew on July 4 over Idaho, where 9 objects kept
up with the plane for about 10 minutes, then seemed to suddenly
disappear.

These experienced pilots were all confused by pelicans that
could fly at least as fast as their planes?

>The clue to possibly identifying the enigmatic objects remains
>in Arnold's description of their flight characteristics. Often,
>birds have a distinctive signature, the "jizz" as it's known,
>and from this a bird's probable identity can be determined, even
>if the sighting was inconclusive.

If you carefully select only those details that you think fit a
theory, and arbitrarily dismiss those that don't, why you can
prove any theory you like.

>Don Baccus, an ornithologist, also commented to Michael Price
>[see the newsletter for details of Michael's comments]:

>"Michael, my first thought when I started reading your analysis
>was white pelican. Several years ago, when training a good
>birder in the finer details of splitting migrating hawks into
>species, age, etc. at long distances at the beginning of the
>fall migration season (i.e. training him to run our count), we
>saw distant white 'blurps' fading in and out of visibility many
>miles north. This was at the Goshutes, i.e. on the Utah/Nevada
>border. It was near sunset. It was obvious that the sun was
>reflecting on their underwings.

Very, very different from Arnold's sighting, which was early
afternoon when the sun and sky were bright.  There would be very
little luminance contrast between birds at a great distance and
the background sky.  How about Arnold's comments of seeing them
flash brightly even against the snowfields of Mt. Rainier?
That's about as bright a background as you can get.  How can
birds "flash" under such conditions? The answer is they can't.

At sunset, however, the background sky is considerably darker
than in broad daylight, and objects reflecting light of the
setting sun at higher altitudes can stand out against the
background.  But that wasn't the situation reported by Kenneth
Arnold.

>They'd disappear momentarily and
>then reappear in sequence. They were flying east-to-west and we
>first spotted them somewhat to the northeast. I pegged them as
>white pelicans almost immediately, as the whole cadence of the
>thing matched the way white pelicans will soar in line (in this
>case - they'll also 'V' up), and rather than flap all at once,
>often will each begin to flap as each reaches the position where
>the previous bird began to flap.  Same with turning, etc. Of
>course, they'll also do this in more of a synchronized
>formation, too, but I'm sure you've all seen white pelicans flap
>and glide in the kind of pattern I'm describing.

And here's a another really big difference between Arnold's
report and flocking birds.  First of all the question, what
advantage is there to birds to flock and fly in formation?  The
answer is that it saves energy for the flock as a whole.  The
bird in front breaks a path through the air for the bird
directly behind it.

IF THE BIRD BEHIND IS CLOSE ENOUGH, it can take advantage of
this and save itself a little energy.  Military planes also use
this principle to save fuel by flying in close formation, as do
race car drivers.

But if the birds are more than few feet from one another,
nothing is gained.  They have to stay close.  In fact, Easton
soon has another quote from another bird expert saying exactly
this.  The pelicans fly practically wingtip to wingtip when they
are in formation.

Now compare this with what Arnold reported for his sighting.  He
said the formation of 9 objects seemed to be about the same
length as a ridge about 25 miles away.  Arnold said he later
flew over the ridge and measured it to be about 5 miles in
length.  What Arnold was really reporting was an angle:  5/25 =
.2 radian or about 11 degrees.  The angle doesn't change with
distance.  If you want to find the absolute length of the
formation, you have to scale for the actual distance.

Let's compare this with a flock of pelicans only 1 mile away, a
distance at which Arnold would have been able to identify very
large birds with considerable ease.  (E.g., I've been able to
clearly identify small sea gulls at 2/3 mile.)  Since this is
only 1/25th the distance, the length of the formation reported
by Arnold would likewise be 1/25th of 5 miles, or 0.2 miles or
roughly 1000 feet.   The distance between each of 9 objects if
evenly spaced would be 1/8 of this or 125 feet.

The "pelicans" would be over 100 feet apart from one another,
much too far apart to get any benefit from flying in formation.
If you want to get a feel for the angular width of the formation
Arnold was reporting, make your hand flat and then stick it out
at arm's length.  What would a comparable angular width be for a
string of 9 flocking birds at 1 mile?  Probably no more than the
width of your little finger, if that.  Quite a difference, isn't
there?

The situation only gets worse if you scale to larger distances.
The 1 mile figure was trying to give the pelican theory all the
help it could get.  But a more realistic figure might be 2
miles, where Arnold might have a very tough time clearly
distinguishing the bodies and wings of the pelicans.  At that
distance they would be 250 feet apart.  At 4 miles, 500 feet
apart, etc., etc.

And of course, pelicans could never outfly Arnold's plane, not
that any of this matters to James Easton.

>I couldn't think of any bird that would show such a cadence and
>literally twinkle white while switching from soaring to
>flapping".

So AWP's twinkle white against a darkened sky at sunset.  But
would they flash brightly like a mirror against a snowy backdrop
in bright sunlight?

>Investigating this suggestion further, there are notable
>correlations with Arnold's observations.

Only the ones James Easton wants to see, while ignoring all
those he doesn't.

>Arnold claimed, "They flew like many times I have observed geese
>to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they were
>linked together".

In other words, formation flying, used by both birds and
aircraft to save energy.  So how does formation flying
necessarily indicate birds?

>"...they numbered nine. They were flying diagonally in echelon
>formation..."

>In 'Birds of the World', by Oliver L. Austin Jr. p 42, he
>states:

>"Pelicans fly in long lines, sometimes in a V formation,
>sometimes abreast, sometimes in single file directly behind one
>another. Most often they form a wide echelon, each bird slightly
>behind and to one side of the next".

Please note the words, "EACH BIRD SLIGHTLY BEHIND AND TO ONE
SIDE OF THE NEXT."  That's what it takes to gain any benefit
from formation flying.

But that's not what Arnold reported, is it?  The objects were
WIDELY strung out , not slightly behind one another.

Of course James Easton is free to totally ignore this detailed
observation of Arnold's, just like he ignores everything else he
doesn't like.  He thinks that's what skepticism is about.  But
what we are really seeing is extremely biased and fuzzy-headed
thinking.

>Arnold also mentions, "They were flying diagonally in echelon
>formation with a larger gap in their echelon between the first
>four and last five". Discussing this with Michael, he agreed
>with my assessment that this is standard behaviour in a flock
>and wrote, "all line-abreast, diagonal and astern flocking birds
>develop gaps and fill them in randomly".

>A further, distinctive connection, is Arnold's claim, "They
>didn't fly like any aircraft I had ever seen before.

How is this necessarily a distinctive connection?  Couldn't the
same argument be applied to new aircraft that were our own or
those that weren't our own?  Arnold wouldn't have seen those
before either.

> In the first place their echelon formation was backward from that
> practiced by our Air Force.

Yes, aircraft fly in formation too, so how does formation flying
necessarily indicate they were birds?

>The elevation of the first craft was greater than that of the last".

>This is a typical feature of American White Pelicans flying in
>formation.

But it is not a typical feature of their formation flying to be
widely strung out, probably by a factor of 10 or greater over
that required for proper flocking.

>Consider also his statements that:

>"I observed the objects' outlines plainly as they flipped and
>flashed against the snow and also against the sky".

Birds can obviously be silhouetted against a snow field, but how
the hell can they flash?

>"They fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately and
>emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their
>surfaces".

So how do pelicans emit those bright blue-white flashes against
a snow field backdrop.  That's what you would get from something
like a metal aircraft with a specular finish, not feathers.
Even if the white feathers reflected equally as well as snow/ice
(which they do not), there would be no luminance or color
contrast with the background.  They would be invisible.

>In 'The Birds', by Roger T. Peterson (Time-Life International),
he writes:

>"Much the simplest form of flight, certainly much less
>complicated than flapping or hovering, is gliding flight".

etc., etc.  Like I said, Easton will simply ignore everything he
doesn't like.

>The parallel between Arnold's objects in echelon which "flipped
>and flashed", "fluttered and sailed", and a formation of
>pelicans in echelon "beating and gliding", as 'Birds of the
>World' describes their flight, seems evident.

How is it evident that they would flash brightly against a snow
field?

>As Don Baccus remarked, "I couldn't think of any bird that would
>show such a cadence and literally twinkle white while switching
>from soaring to flapping".

>Michael Price also confirmed, "Assuming he was looking at birds,
>the flipflop appearance of these birds would be visible whether
>higher, same altitude, or lower as the sun might be reflecting
>strongly and directly off white upper and/or underwing
>surfaces".

>Kenneth Arnold was perhaps after all on the right track when he stated:

>"They flew in a definite formation but erratically. As I
>described them at the time their flight was like speed boats on
>rough water or similar to the tail of a Chinese kite that I once
>saw blowing in the wind. Or maybe it would be best to describe
>their flight characteristics as very similar to a formation of
>geese, in a rather diagonal chain-like line, as if they were
>linked together".

>Very similar to a formation of geese, but based on the above
>evidence, remarkably like a formation of American White Pelicans.

Uh, aircraft also fly in formation.

>It would have been an uncommon, if not rare, sighting, especially
>with the birds flying south and a possibility which Arnold is
>most unlikely to have examined.

>If that should be the answer and Arnold mistakenly concluded the
>objects must be distant airplanes, it plays havoc with his
>estimated calculations.

Not at all.  His observation of formation angle is independent
of distance.  That rules out a formation of birds, because they
would have been too far apart from one another to have been
flocking, no matter what reasonable distance you assume.

His observation that the objects flew past his plane on a
parallel course rules out birds, completely independent of the
accuracy of his timing or estimates of their distance or
altitude.

His report that they flashed brightly in the sun, particularly
against a snow field, likewise rules out birds.

But James Easton will no doubt just continue to ignore all of
this and keep plugging pelicans to eternity.  It's the Eastonian
way.  And to point out his arguments are seriously flawed and
biased nonsense seems is nothing but "zealotry" in his mind.

>It's these estimates of speed and distance which are open to
>dispute and Arnold's 'second coming of the saucers' encounter
>must surely be considered critical evidence that he was capable
>of mistaking the distance and airspeed of birds.

His estimates of speed and distance have NOTHING to do with
whether they could be birds or not.  This has been repeated a
thousand times, but skeptics seem to be too dense to get it, or
simply don't care.

>The people asking we take Arnold's testimony of the distances at
>face value naughtily ignore the reasons I gave why we can't.

This is nonsense and simple lying.  Critics of birdie theories
are NOT taking Arnold's testimony of distance at face value.
Throw out his estimates of distance, and they still couldn't be
birds.  Even if they were two feet from his pilot's window, he
would fly right past them just the same as if they were 10 miles
away.

>If real, the objects had to be huge and visible to scores of people.

Nonsense -- vague generalities picked out of thin air.  Based on
various information in the report, if the objects had been 20-25
miles away, they would have been of conventional jet airliner
size.

Also have any of these knowledgeable skeptics ever consulted a
map of the area?  It's rugged country and VERY sparsely
populated.  Views are limited, obscured by trees and surrounding
mountains.  Objects whizzing overhead at 2 to 3 times the speed
of sound would typically be in sight for only a second or two.
Like I wrote in another post, I've driven through the area,
right past where Arnold had his sighting at Mineral.  I caught a
glimpse of Rainier and the Cascades only once in over 30 miles.

>They also had to be supersonic and generating sonic booms that
>thousands should have heard.

No, typically UFO sightings of all stripes are rarely reported
with accompanying sonic booms.  The basic principles of
suppressing sonic booms are known (e.g., see Paul Hill's
discussion in his book), as is presently being pursued, e.g., by
people like Myrabo, generating "air spikes" through powerful
lasers or microwaves.

>The guys arguing about
>the trigonometry keep putting the birds and the planes on
>perpendicular paths, but overlook that Arnold explicitly turned
>the plane to get a better look out the side window.

Brookesmith is as clueless as Easton. Turning the plane parallel
to the flight path, as has been pointed out a million times by
"the guys arguing about trigonometry," actually disproves birds
immediately because Arnold would have flown past them instead of
the other way around.  What's so difficult to understand about
that argument?  It could be explained easily to the average 10
year old without the use of math.

And flying perpendicular to their path on an intercept path, as
Arnold was originally before he turned parallel, would have
quickly brought Arnold close enough to migrating birds so that
he would have soon identified what he was dealing with.  It's a
dynamic situation with Arnold on the move along with the
objects.  It sets an absolute lower threshold on how fast the
objects could be flying when he turned parallel to their flight
path.

>The paths were parallel.  Once you put that straight, the angular sizes and
>velocity implicit in Arnold's report can fit coherently those of
>a swan.

"Once you put that straight..."  Oh brother!  What does Brookesmith think
critics of the bird theory have been doing all along?  The parallel flight
path DISPROVES the bird theory, not give it wiggle room to be credible.

> I'm not sure if the speed or size of pelicans would
> materially change the math, but if the flight characteristics
> are a valid signature I wouldn't sweat such details.

Of course not.  Skeptics never "sweat the details" that demolish
their frivolous arguments.

>Any proposition that the American White Pelican was responsible
>for Arnold's reported sighting, must be able to substantiate
>that these birds are known to fly relatively fast and at high
>altitude.

>"The glider I was flying has a 38 mph stall speed... as a matter
>of fact, I was flying at 52 mph between thermals, and these
>birds were staying with me".

>So, it seems whilst still not quite supersonic, pelicans are no
>slouches and under ideal flying conditions, could show a
>surprising turn of wing.

"No slouches"...."surprising turn of wing."  Flowerly language
trying to conceal the fact that these birds couldn't fly nearly
as fast as Arnold's plane.

>We could put it this way; supposing that any pilot encountered a
>small formation of migrating AWPs at high altitude, had never
>seen this unusual sight before and as such, didn't recognise
>these as birds at all.

>What would he be likely to observe in perfect conditions?

>Say..a formation of reflective, bright objects, flying in a
>diagonal echelon, with maybe some of the 'objects' slightly
>ahead of the others. They would occasionally 'flutter' and
>'sail' as they flapped and then glided. From distance, it would
>look something like a 'kite's tail' (he might even describe
>their motion in flight as 'bobbing', skimming, or looking
>something like a stone skipping across water :) ).

Would he observe them flashing with a blinding light, including
against a snow field backdrop.  Would he observe them outflying
his plane on a parallel course?  Would he observe them very
broadly strung out to the point that formation flying would be
useless to birds?

>If this was also in a post-war era of aviation development,
>especially military and when it would be no real surprise to see
>new airplanes, especially ones which were still 'secret', would
>the pilot ever realise, or would anyone suggest, that he had
>seen a formation of AWPs?

>If this did apply to Kenneth Arnold, how could he not realise
>these were birds and believe the 'objects' were much further
>distant and considerably faster than they truly were.

The objects flying faster than his plane on a parallel course
rules on AWPs completely independently of any of Arnold's
impressions of speed or of his ability to properly gauge
distance.  This is the simplest of arguments that seemingly will
never penetrate Easton's thick skull.

>It would have to be that there was evidence these could not have
>been birds, or his overall perception was somehow in error.

"Overall perception."  What the hell does that mean?  It's
typical Eastonian extreme vagueness and hand flailing to conceal
his obvious inability to directly address the very serious
objections to his bird theory.  The best he can do is call the
objections "zealotry" and ignore them.

>Although that's another matter and this is already too long, one
>question which needs to be resolved is how far, maximum, could
>any bright, reflective object of approx. 10ft by 5ft, be visible
>from the air?

A complicated and also meaningless question without specifying
what is meant by bright, reflective, or giving the sighting
conditions, such as background brightness.  Stars, which have no
angular width to speak of, can be seen against a black night sky
over distances of many light years, but disappear in daytime.
It is relative brightness, or luminance contrast, which is most
important.  If there is no contrast with the background, you
don't see the object, no matter how bright or distant it is.

As mentioned  above, 10 feet at 10 miles is .65 minarc, which
would appear to be a dot under proper conditions, and nothing
more.  Proper conditions would be brightly illuminated by
sunlight, but against a darker background.  If you want to put
it in perspective, Venus has about the same angular diameter at
close approach, but when was the last time you ever noticed
Venus in bright sunlight, even though it's possible if you know
exactly where to look?  Venus is also illuminated by reflected
sunlight.  Pelicans at 10 miles will probably suffer the same
fate against a bright blue sky in daylight, and would almost
certainly be invisible against a snowfield background (except
maybe as a dark, not bright dot).  The anecdote of GWPs being
visible at sunset really underscores the importance of the much
darker background needed for good luminance contrast, a
condition which did NOT exist in the Arnold sighting.

>Peter Kingsmill is a naturalist and Director General of The
>Redberry Pelican Project (Canada) Foundation. I had also asked
>Peter for his assessment and he replied, "Everything in Arnold's
>description that you quoted

If its typical Easton selective quoting, then no wonder the guy
agrees.  Did Easton supply him with the quotes of very bright,
blinding flashes, including against snowfields? Did he provide
Arnold's air speed and the fact that Arnold reported the objects
outflying him on a parallel course?  How about how widely strung
out they were?

>points to the strong possibility he
>saw a flock of AWPs... the formation, the allusion to the tail
>of a Chinese kite, etc".

Right, but nothing about bright flashes, outflying the plane,
etc.  Figures.

>All irrelevant of course if the answer lies elsewhere!

Well at least he finally got that figured out.  Yes, it is all
irrelevant unless the fatal objections to the bird theory can be
answered in a rational way, instead of the usual semantic
evasion and puffery with which we have been treated.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                      MUFON '99 International Symposium

From: Sue Kovios <bradford@globalserve.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:44:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:46:04 -0400
Subject: MUFON '99 International Symposium


Forward:
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:30:35 -0400 (EDT)

To: cydonia@listbox.com
From: Vincent J. Mooney Jr. <vincentj@erols.com>
Subject: [M-TRAC - MSAA] Milamo
Reply-To: cydonia@admin.listbox.com

<snip>

****************************************************************


MUFON '99 INTERNATIONAL UFO SYMPOSIUM
"Transcending Politics & Comfort Zones in Ufology"

Friday - Saturday - Sunday July 2,3 & 4, 1999

Virginia MUFON will host the MUFON '99 International UFO
Symposium at the Hyatt Regency Crystal CityReagan National
Airport2799 Jefferson Davis HighwayArlington, VA 22202
1-800-228-9000

An attractive room rate of $89.00 per night has been negotiated,
and this includes up to four people, no extra charge.When
making reservations be sure to specify that you want one king
bed or two doubles. Make reservations directly with the hotel at
1-800-228-9000.

To register for the conference, please mail check or money order
payable to:

MUFON '99 International UFO Symposium
7873 Heritage Dr. Suite 574
Annandale, VA 22003

Registration Fees:

Conference presentations (before June 9th).... $65.00
Conference presentations (after June 9th)..... $75.00
Friday night buffet dinner/party (advance).... $20.00
Friday night buffet dinner/party (at door).... $25.00
Sunday FUFOR Brunch (advance only)............ $25.00
(includes Kelly Cahill's book Encounter)

Children under 13 can attend the Symposium free, while the
buffet/party will be at full price.

Conference Schedule:

Press Conference.................................. Fri at 1:00 pm
Buffet Dinner/Party .............................. Fri at 6:00 pm
Presentations (with scheduled meal breaks)........ Sat9:00 am to 9:30 pm
Presentations (with scheduled meal breaks)........ Sun 9:00 am to 6:00 pm
FUFOR Brunch with Kelly Cahill.................... Sun 11:00 am to 1:00 pm
National fireworks on the mall.................... Sun Evening

Since the next day, Monday the 5th, is a holiday for most
people, I hope that many will stay to the end of the Symposium
and enjoy the show. With world class art museums, the
Smithsonian Institute, tour buses pulling up to the hotel and
dozens of attractions-- it makes a nice vacation destination for
the whole family!

Confirmed Speakers to date:
Thomas "Eddie" Bullard, PhD
Kelly Cahill
Joseph Firmage
Stanton Friedman
Richard Hall
Budd Hopkins
Eve Frances Lorgen
Betty Andreasson Luca
Bruce Maccabee, PhD
Jenny Randles
S. Peter Resta, PhD
Robert Swiatek
Beverly Trout

A great line-up is taking shape!

FUFOR Brunch

The MUFON Symposium will break for brunch from 11:00am until
1:00pm on Sunday, July 4th. Attendees are invited to join the
Fund for UFO Research (FUFOR) for a special breakfast brunch and
presentation by KELLY CAHILL and local area abductees.You will
enjoy a buffet brunch at the hotel while listening to BRUCE
MACCABEE at the piano. A discussion is to follow that will
compare US abduction experiences with Australian cases. This
will be a more intimate venue with Kelly and a generous time
will be allowed for Q & A.The price of this breakfast brunch
is $25.00 and includes a copy of Kelly's book, Encounter, which
details her experiences up until '96.This well-written book is
not available in this country and is one of the best
first-person abductee books ever written.

Join FUFOR for this fundraiser brunch whose proceeds will be
used to defray the travel expenses of our lovely guest from
down-under. --Support UFO Reseach -- --Enjoy a Fine Brunch --
--Meet Kelly -- --Seating is LIMITED!Advance registration is
mandatory--

Please mail $25.00 check or money order made out to FUFOR to the same
registration address as for the MUFON Symposium:

MUFON '99 International UFO Symposium FUFOR Brunch
7873 Heritage Dr. Suite 574
Annandale, VA 22003


MUFON SYMPOSIUM THEME FOR 1999
"Transcending Politics & Comfort Zones in Ufology"

Susan L. Swiatek
Coordinator of the MUFON 30th Anniversary
Symposium

We find ourselves nearly at the end of the second millenium,
after studying the phenomenon of UFOs in excess of 50 years. And
we must ask ourselves how far we have progressed in our studies:
What have we really learned as a civilization about this at once
ephemeral yet pervasively physical mystery?

We must admit that though some progress has been made, overall
it has been somewhat slow. In fact there is very little
information about UFOs that is universally agreed upon by those
of us in ufology, let alone the society in general. There are
still more questions than answers: Who is/are the
intelligence(s) behind the saucers? Where do they come from? And
just why are they invading our skies and our psyches?

Our governments have not been forthcoming with answers. We are
not absolutely certain that they know a great deal more than we
do. Even with rumors of black budgets seemingly without limit,
our governments may find that they face another kind of limit--a
somewhat self-imposed limit symptomatic of our very humanness.

Humans are much more comfortable being firmly in the middle of
the pack, not making waves or straying too far from the herd.
The politics of what is acceptable define our comfort zones of
thought. In addition to allowing others to define what is
politically correct and therefore comfortable, we sometimes find
within ourselves our own zones that we steadfastly refuse to
broach. How many among us think that it is irrefutable that UFOs
are real objects that course about our skies on a regular basis,
but that the notion of alien beings disembarking and taking
humans on board is flat out impossible?

Or we may say, "An alien intelligence of some kind is likely
abducting people onto their craft. But scenarios of sexual
examinations, sperm and ova being taken and possible
hybridization experiments are too far out to even consider."
Some luminaries in the UFO field have said as much. My argument
here is not that aliens are real and doing this or that. My
argument is that the careful study and open-minded weighing of
all the data is what is needed. To do good science we don't have
the luxury of a wholesale dismissal of evidence that is "too far
out to even consider." We must consider all the evidence that
may be politically incorrect or indeed even challenges our
personal comfort zones.

It is a fruitful exercise to look back upon your own education
and development within ufology. You weren't born knowing that
UFOs constitute a real phenomenon. At some point in time you
heard or read something that made you sit up and take notice of
a subject that previously made you snicker or simply look away.
Some of you can recount startling first-hand sightings or
experiences that made all the difference. But the vast majority
of us learn about and form conclusions about UFOs the same way
we do about any subject. We take in the available information
and draw reasonable conclusions.

What did you hear or read that awakened your curiosity, that
made you want to read and know more? What finally upset the
apple-cart of what you had been told all your life about UFOs?
What obliterated your previously well-maintained intellectual
comfort zones? What emboldened you to stray from the herd of
colleagues and peers?

The answers to these questions will help us grow and explore our
own self-imposed limits as well as deepen our commitment to
consider all of the data. And our insights will help us nudge
others--ufologists, scientists, academics and officials
alike--to boldly eschew political hamstringing, consider the
data and finally transcend old discarded comfort zones.

Contact Susan Swiatek swiman@pop.dn.net
Hostess of MUFON's 30th Anniversary Symposium -1999 for further
information.

back to Virginia MUFON Homepage
http://dc.jones.com/~lauraufo/laura_mufon1.htm


-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
Mars Surface Anomaly Analysis
Possible artifacts on Mars
http://www.mufor.org/ares/

The M-TRAC Project
A private, unmanned mission to Mars
http://www.mufor.org/mtrac/

Please support this mailing list by sending $1
to Malta UFO Research, PO Box 14, Rabat RBT 01, Malta
or if you want to buy any books from Amazon.com use
the links and search engine at http://www.mufor.org/store.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

              Re: Greer Joins The Prophets Conference Visiting

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:49:56 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:47:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Greer Joins The Prophets Conference Visiting


>From: prophets@maui.net
>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:53:04 -1000
>To: axiom@greatmystery.org
>Subject: Greer Joins The Prophets Conference Visiting Faculty

>DR. STEVEN M. GREER, CSETI founder and International Director,
>joins THE PROPHETS CONFERENCE ~ PORT TOWNSEND, WA, August 27-29

>Dr. Greer is widely regarded as the world's foremost authority
>on the subject of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI),

<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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                 'Angel Hair' Again Falls From The Sky In OZ

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@fan.net.au>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:29:00 +1000
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:01:02 -0400
Subject: 'Angel Hair' Again Falls From The Sky In OZ


The Keith Basterfield Network Australasia
E-Mail  tkbnetw@fan.net.au
http://www.fan.net.au/~tkbnetw
***************************************************************************
UFO Australian  Research Network Hot Line Number
                       1800 77 22 88 Free Call
***************************************************************************

>From Perth , Angel Hair falls from the Sky again In OZ

Hi Di

Very important report from the Esperance area, WA. Yesterday 9th
June 1999 a man witnessed tonnes of white filamentous threads
falling from the sky over a 90 kilometre area or more. Paddocks,
hedges, trees were covered with the stuff and it hung off power
lines in great shrouds with lengths up to thirty feet long.

Apparently the sky was thick with it up to a thousand feet or
more. There was no wind. The threads fell from 10am to 3pm. All
the paddocks in the area had a 'sheen' caused by layers of the
stuff. Peter, the witness, picked up some of the 'hair' to try
and get it analysed. A Cessna aircraft was flying around as low
as 200ft through the falling threads. Three contrails were
stationary much higher, one with a spiral in it. Channel 9 put
out a report (tonight) that the same stuff was used in
Yugoslavia to put out electrical power supplies (generators) but
we all know that was a classified carbon based substance totally
unrelated to 'Angel Hair'!

Ciao for now,
Brian

Still under investigation

Regard Diane Harrison

Australian Skywatch Director
Co Director Australian UFO Research Network





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                   Return of Orange UFOs To OZ East Coast

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@fan.net.au>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:42:49 +1000
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:04:54 -0400
Subject: Return of Orange UFOs To OZ East Coast


The Keith Basterfield Network Australasia
E-Mail  tkbnetw@fan.net.au
http://www.fan.net.au/~tkbnetw

***************************************************************************
UFO Australian  Research Network Hot Line Number
                       1800 77 22 88 Free Call
***************************************************************************

Australia UFO researchers - http://www.flex.com.au/~eagle1

Hi list,

Friday 11th June.

Return of the Orange UFO's to the East Coast.

A total of six (6) orange UFOs slowly flew over Grafton, all
heading towards the North East.

The first at 6.50pm, a second at 9.45pm, following the same
flight path. At 10.10pm, one object approached from the West (
S.W.) and headed towards the N.E. about 1 klm . to the north of
town. Then at 10.25pm, an amazing sight as one by one, three (3)
orange UFO's emerged from behind a tree line, and slowly flew in
the same flight path as the previous one. The two leading
objects were one slightly behind the other at the same altitude.
The third was trailing approx. 300 metres behind, and about the
same altitude of the first two. Altitude estimated at around
1,500ft.  When the group was to the north of my position, the
centre object appeared to almost stop. The leading object
continued to move on alone, blinked a few times then went out.
The trailing object then caught up, then overtook the stationery
centre one. After it had passed, these two began slowly blinking
on-and-off in perfect unison. They then faded out together.

With the 10.10pm sighting, at one stage a 'meteor' (without a
tail) streaked through the field of view when looking through
the video camera. Not sure what it was, but it was fast. A total
of 23 minutes of video taken of these sightings.

I hear, (but did not see), that there was a News report of UFO
activity on Prime T.V. Did anyone hear anything on the News???

So get yourselves together and Skywatch. Now is your best chance
to see them for yourselves.

Regards,

Barry Taylor.


bye @Oo.?

e-mail  stingray@nor.com.au
Personal U.F.O. Home Page URL  http://www.nor.com.au/users/stingray/

             *****************************************************
             See Latest UFO Images on the "Latest Sightings" Link.
             *****************************************************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:51:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:31:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>To:"UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 14:20:16 PDT

>Incidentally, let me put in a plug for that terrific book
>you and Hilary Evans put together.  It's one of the few UFO
>books of this decade that people will want to read (or
>reread) in decades to come.  It's also one of the relative
>handful of 1990s UFOs book not to insult one's intelligence.
>You have every right to be proud of it.  I know I'm proud
>to be a contributor to it.

>Jerry Clark


Jerry,

Thanks! We probably need explore no further to explain its
failure to find an American publisher.

For the record, skimpy as it is, it was reprinted in Australia
as A World History of UFOs and reissued in a paperback edition
by the original English publisher, John Brown, as The UFO
Mystery. It also appeared as a hardback in Japan.

I still have a personal stash of the original English hardback
edition and must sell, oh, gee, two or three copies a year.

Next time, if there is one, I'll know to pick a better title,
preferably one with a few more potent keywords in it, perhaps
"alien reptiles," "scalpel," "mutilation" "abduction," or
posssibly all the above. My personal preference, although this
could change: "Alien Reptiles From Roswell: A True Personal
Acccount."

I should point out that no reputations or personalities were
(irreparably) harmed by the publication of "UFOs 1947-1997:
Fifty Years of Flying Saucers." It goes without saying that no
great personal fortune was accumulated, either.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                      New CD-ROM Publication From CUFOS

From: Steven W. Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:27:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 08:13:06 -0400
Subject: New CD-ROM Publication From CUFOS


A number of research reports into the UFO phenomenon have been
mentioned on this (and other) "lists" that have been out of
print for a number of years and very difficult to obtain.  I
have been working with the Center for UFO Studies to scan a
number of them and make them available on CD-ROM, and the first
of a small series of CD-ROMs has now been finalized and prepared
for sale.  This CD contains three classic reports from the CUFOS
archives:

"UFO Reports Involving Vehicle Inteference" by Mark Rodeghier

"Physical Trace Associated with UFO Sightings" by Ted Phillips
(and)

"1973-Year of the Humanoids" by Dave Webb

These reports have been scanned into .PDF format, and for
further information on how it may be orderred, please visit the
CUFOS web site at http://www.cufos.org/mmenu.htm

These reports are a part of the historical record into the
investigation into UFOs, and it is priced very reasonably.  BTW,
the profits will help CUFOS at a time when they face serious
financial difficulties.

Several other projects along this line are already in the queue,
but if there are specific recommendations for future offerings,
I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Steve Kaeser







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                       Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:14:10 -0400
Subject: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


Hi,

All this stuff about Max Burns brings up a critical issue about
UFO credibility and the way we present ourselves in public.
Surely that ID the issue here. It is what BUFORA utterly failed
to read. They did the same thing with the fawning over the
Santilli autopsy fiasco.  Although I dare say they might - not
unreasonably - cast back the point against various Sheffield
events that, for instance, the IUN invited the likes of Budd
Hopkins - when he is (without medical qualification) regressing
five year old children and promoting the image of nasty grays
raping humans. Somehow there is not a lot of difference here.
Both are apparently honest ufologists expressing a view that
most of us consider not only fundamentally wrong but potentially
destructive. We may hate these opinions but can we honourably
suppress them all?

My argument here is not that BUFORA were right. I don't think
they were. Free speech is no substitute for allowing nonsense to
be set before the public in your name. But the point is one that
requires deeper consideration as to a degree we all do the same
thing without probably being aware of that fact. So - perhaps, a
general consensus that we could agree and issue as a
proclamation about is what we need to emerge from this mess. If
we agree to abide by this working practice we would set an
example to Ufology.

What example? Let us all take the decision here and now that any
public event we organise involve the invitation only of serious
researchers who can put forward hard evidence with a
demonstrably scientific basis and who do not endorse patently
absurd, unscientific ideas without support. Nor that we should
invite anyone who sets before the public a scenario that has
damaging moral or ethical repercussions. As these things require
common sense and someone to make a value judgement we don't want
to set ourselves up as the thought police.  So I suggest we
agree a second principle, if we make a value judgement and yet
someone whom we invite still clearly offends the sensitivities
of people out there - such responsible criticism should be
heeded. If it is apparent there is concern over an invite then a
free vote is offered over the net - a simple yes/no to whether
that person should be considered suitable for invite and that
the decision to run with that lecturer or to cancel the invite
be abided by whatever the outcome of this vote.

Otherwise we face the question of setting ourselves up to make
moral choices about who should be empowered to speak and who
should not. I don't see how we can fairly do that. For the record
I would certainly have voted no to Max Burns - except had there
been a two way lecture (i.e. Max versus David so the audience
could judge the case side by side). This is exactly what I
proposed to BUFORA Council over the Santilli farce - that he be
allowed a platform at Sheffield in 1995 only if the alternative
perspective was simultaneously offered to allow free debate and
let the audience make fair judgement. As you know BUFORA
scuppered that plan and left themselves open to what are
therefore utterly justified criticism to this day over the way
they aided and abetted the autopsy promo.

So when it came to Max Burns, I did not scream and shout at
BUFORA - I protested quietly by declining to promote the lecture
and by not accepting an invite to lecture to BUFORA during the
next 12 months. My point was thus, I trust, made without
fanfare.

Rather than us now argue over a lecture that happened and which,
frankly, by trying to stop probably made it seem more
interesting to some than it deserved to be, lets stop blaming
some and shouting at others and do something positive instead.
Let us agree a declaration like I have just set out (that
obviously needs fine tuning) and those of us who accept it - on
behalf of ourselves and groups we represent  -then issue it as a
proclamation to the UFO world ASAP encouraging other UFO groups
to sign up to the initiative.  The plan would be to demonstrate
globally that we are voluntarily setting standards as regards to
the people we invite to give our public lectures - even if it
means not inviting some whose dramatic claims and media stardom
would attract audiences and put money into our coffers. We are
putting the principle of only promoting good, serious,
defensible research and theorising first and any personal gain
second.  This will send a small message that we do care about
self policing ufology and making efforts to do the right thing
by educating the public - surely one of our primary aims.

To me doing this is a positive outcome from the Santilli and Max
Burns affair. We will be turning it on its head and taking a
step forward on behalf of Ufology. So why not? Lets stop
fretting over a lecture that's been and gone and use it as a
springboard to agree a simple, straightforward but constructive
policy initiative for ufology.

Comments please.

Jenny Randles






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                   Van Den Broeck's Paper On 'Warp' Drive

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:09:51 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:14:37 -0400
Subject: Van Den Broeck's Paper On 'Warp' Drive


Van Den Broeck's paper on his 'warp' drive is posted on Los
Alamos National Laboratories' web site. Go to

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9905084

for the various formats. Links are preceded by an asterisk.

You'll need Adobe's Acrobat Reader 3.01 or better for the
version that I have attached to this email.

Stig

***

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract
gr-qc/9905084


From: Chris Van Den Broeck *<chris.vandenbroeck@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date (*v1): Fri, 21 May 1999 12:50:59 GMT   (8kb)
Date (revised v2): Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:25:26 GMT   (9kb)

A 'warp drive' with reasonable total energy requirements

Authors: *Chris Van Den Broeck

Comments: 9 pages, 1 figure; minor modifications; typos corrected

Report-no: KUL-TF-99/18

I show how a minor modification of the Alcubierre geometry can
dramatically improve the total energy requirements for a `warp
bubble' that can be used to transport macroscopic objects. A
spacetime is presented for which the total negative mass needed
is only in the order of grams, accompanied by a negligible
amount of positive energy. This constitutes a reduction of the
absolute value of the energy by 65 orders of magnitude. The new
geometry satisfies the quantum inequality concerning WEC
violations and exhibits the same advantages as the original
Alcubierre spacetime.


Paper: *Source (9kb), *PostScript, or *Other formats

(*N.B.: delivery types and potential problems)

refers *to , cited *by

Links to: *xxx, *gr-qc, /*find, /*abs (*-/*+), /*9905, ?


*http://www-admin@xxx.lanl.gov





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:22:28 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:40:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100


As usual Jenny makes some important and valuable points. Various
problems arise and I'm sure she will see the dilemma.

Lancashire UFO Society is not the only group to hold meetings
and Conferences. Although we all put our hand in our probably
more than we should have to (people will spend �20 on a crappy
Area 51 video that tells them nothing new and which trivialises
the issues surrounding its' non-existence and baulk at paying �3
to hear a speaker at a meeting who will tell them infinitely
more) there would be no meetings or Conferences - and hence very
little (or no) money for local groups -if we did not invite
speakers with whom we (occasionally violently) disagree and who
promote an unscientific and largely fantastic view of the
subject material.

It is simply not the case that UFO researchers are going to fund
each other - so what do we do?

If I organise Conferences and meeting featuring those of an
overly skeptical bent (our "Countdown to the Millennium" event
last February being an interesting case in point; 4 skeptics and
one believer - sorry Jerry!) then very few people will attend.
This is a fact. Even the IUN used to invite Friedman,
Moulton-Howe and a host of others (William MJ-12 faker Moore
too!!) to Conferences and I suggest that those events would not
have been as successful without them.

Perhaps the only thing to do is to try and strike a balance and
as I have learned through trying to do this it is a road
littered with obstacles. At the February event several people
were thrilled by the balance I struck whereas some people were
horrified and I doubt that they will ever come to another UFO
event. Nevertheless, a handful of complaints from an audience of
125 is not bad.

At our regular events throughout the North West it is true to
say that long-term members and supporters (or consumers if
you're making money from Ufology) have been educated away from
an overly "believer" stance through the introduction of
skeptical material at our meetings.

It's also amazing to see how gullible others are....

I am interested to hear others people's views on this. At the
end of the day I think we need more extreme skepticism from
people like Kevin McClure because people's wild beliefs need a
constant challenge. In the case of "Abduction Watch" Kevin and I
disagree on several things but it is true to say that other
researchers have backed down and/or modified their views (the
Fife Incident, use of hypnosis/regression, aliens 'abducting'
people, 'alien' implants) as a result of his work.

I know that others have changed their views of flying discs and
triangles as a result of my research. This has put several
people's noses to of joint - and I am very happy about this.

At the end of the day it's down to a few individuals - people
reading this - to have the courage of their convictions and be
prepared to take on the lunatics in Ufology and challenge them
EVERY time they put their garbage into the public domain.

In opposition to this, of course, is the realization that the
'skeptics' could all be entirely wrong and themselves victims of
a UFO cover-up!!!

In the meantime I'm open to suggestions as to how we
proceed.......

Tim Matthews.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                European Journal of UFO and Abduction Studies

From: John Hayes <jhayes@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:30:58 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:41:44 -0400
Subject: European Journal of UFO and Abduction Studies


Dear Errol & List Members,

I am forwarding a message from Craig Roberts, editor of the
European Journal of UFO and Abduction Studies that he asked me
to put on the UFOINFO web site:


He is sending a final reminder that the European Journal of UFO
and Abduction Studies (EJUFOAS) is looking for submissions for
the launch issue in September 1999.

There is only limited space left so be quick with your
submissions. This would be greatly appreciated.

Craig Roberts,
Editor of EJUFOAS,
OCN Ufology Course Director,
TRUTH UK.

Chris can be contacted by e-mail at: <ejufoas@totton.ac.uk>


Please note that the following information is available on the
UFOINFO site:

EJUFOAS Submissions Guidelines at:
http://ufoinfo.com/magazines/ejufoas2.html

Information about EJUFOAS at:
http://ufoinfo.com/magazines/uk.shtml#ejufoas

Regards,

John Hayes

jhayes@cableinet.co.uk
webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com
UFO Roundup:- http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/
Filer's Files:- http://ufoinfo.com/filer/
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences:-
        http://ufoinfo.com/ufoicq/





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:24:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:45:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>To:"UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 14:20:16 PDT

>>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:12:05 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

<snip>

>My choice: full access to everything Arnold had. The reality:
>virtually all of it got burned up by the late Mrs. Arnold years
>ago. I am not the guy, by the way, to lecture to on this matter,
>since some years ago I tried very hard to get access to
>everything, including the film, before one of Arnold's daughters
>finally told me that the stuff no longer existed.

Now we know. Much indebted. Still a point of some curiosity:
What happened to the film at the time? Surely Arnold wasn't a
disgruntled distancer in 1952?

>>The last time I looked, historians had an obligation to the
>>truth as it can best be determined, not to choosing sides in a
>>perceived squabble.

>Well, I'm all in favor of truth, which often forces one to take
>sides.  If you think historians don't take sides and pot shots
>at each other, you're a lot less intellectually sophisticated
>than in fact I know you are.

<snip>

>Jerry Clark

I was, admittedly, referring to some sort of abstract ideal of
history and historians, just as you not infrequently remind us
that, somewhere out there, there must exist a similarly abstract
ideal of ufology and ufologists.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                         Re: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:30:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:55:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Beyond the Blunderdome



With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza (for it is he):

On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100, Jenny Randles wrote:

>All this stuff about Max Burns brings up a critical issue
>about UFO credibility and the way we present ourselves in
>public. Surely that ids the issue here. It is what BUFORA
>utterly failed to read. They did the same thing with the
>fawning over the Santilli autopsy fiasco.  Although I dare
>say they might - not unreasonably - cast back the point
>against various Sheffield events that, for instance, the IUN
>invited the likes of Budd Hopkins - when he is (without
>medical qualification) regressing five year old children and
>promoting the image of nasty grays raping humans. Somehow
>there is not a lot of difference here. Both are apparently
>honest UFOlogists expressing a view that most of us consider
>not only fundamentally wrong but potentially destructive. We
>may hate these opinions but can we honourably suppress them
>all?

I believe I was among if not the first to express some outrage
in public at Budd Hopkins's regression of small children, in a
review in "Fortean Times" of an IUN Sheffield conference in
approximately 1993. In his presentations (which I taped, but I
write from memory) he actually admitted the children were as
young as two and a half.

I don't think Hopkins is honest, although he may be sincere in
his own peculiar way. Nor do I think Mad Max is honest. In
neither case, however, do I think is there is any question of
deliberate misrepresentation or hucksterism. But it surely is
self-deception, which I've called intellectual dishonesty (see
UFO UpDates, passim), and for which I've been most vehemently
reprimanded, most often by people who I'd naively expected
would know better. That the strongest detractors are citizens
of the United States is not, I think, entirely coincidental.

Pleasant as it is to talk about oneself, I am actually also
pointing these couple of things out for an impartial & (I
think) disinterested purpose. I imagine most people receiving
this de facto discussion list also know I've sounded off at
length at Max & the BUFORA clowns in attempts to get them to
see the difference between free speech and promoting claptrap.
Thus far Jenny and I have no argument.

But I would caution that this recommendation (a) goes too far
as a matter of principle and (b) is unenforceable in practice:

>Let us all take the decision here and now that
>any public event we organise involve the invitation only of
>serious researchers who can put forward hard evidence with a
>demonstrably scientific basis and who do not endorse
>patently absurd, unscientific ideas without support. Nor
>that we should invite anyone who sets before the public a
>scenario that has damaging moral or ethical repercussions.

Taking the second point (b) first, does anyone really think
that the Birdsall brothers - for example - will wash their
hands of the likes of Stan Friedman, Linda Mouldy Cowe, Hopkins
and his neophytes, Tony Dodd, Harry Harris, Nick Pope, Tim Good
- all of whom strike me as unhinged in varying degrees - et al?
The Birdsalls are in business as conference impresarios, not in
the business of promoting objective analyses of ostensibly
anomalous phenomena. Ergo they will promote the proponents of
the more sensational claims, to put bums on seats. No more,
come to that, will the likes of Alice Earle and Jame Watkins at
John Brown suddenly begin to shrink from inviting the likes of
Hopkins, Graham Hancock, Philip Mantle &c &c &c, to FT
UnConventions.

But between the Birdsall approach and FT's lies an important
difference, and one that we might take as a more practical
approach to the problem of "seriousness" (as in those cant &
much abused phrases "serious ufologists" and "serious
researchers"). The FT UnCons never fail to lay on a fine array
of skeptics and debunkers to balance the mental diet. Hopkins,
for example, had to contend with the presence of Hilary Evans,
and even (aaiiieee!) the dread Phil Klass at a recent UnCon,
and made a right pratt of himself, earning several
well-deserved hisses and boos, by refusing to appear on the
same stage as Klass for a panel discussion.

So, rather than leave these matters to the vagaries of some
kind of ad hoc democracy, as in--

>As these things require common sense and someone to make a
>value judgement we dont want to set ourselves up as the
>thought police.  So I suggest we agree a second principle,
>if we make a value judgement and yet someone whom we invite
>still clearly offends the sensitivities of people out there
>- such responsible criticism should be heeded. If it is
>apparent there is concern over an invite then a free vote is
>offered over the net - a simple yes/no to whether that
>person should be considered suitable for invite and that the
>decision to run with that lecturer or to cancel the invite
>be abided by whatever the outcome of this vote.

--I'd commend all and sundry to invite whom they like, barking
as they may be, to their conferences, but to ensure that a
rational and balanced voice is on the same programme to present
the qualifying point of view. Even the Birdsalls could rise to
that, though they seem to do so rarely. (What they have yet to
learn is that skeptics and curmudgeons like Hilary Evans, Andy
Roberts, Ian Ridpath and I visibly pack any hall as thoroughly
as the most devout of True Believers, *and* we get bigger
laughs besides. The Birdsalls' real mistake - which you could
divine from the arrogant tone of their dreadful magazine - is
to underestimate the intelligence and the tolerance of their
market.)

Presenting a balanced list of speakers at least would satisfy
this point from Jenny--

>Otherwise we face the question of setting ourselves up to
>make moral choices about who should be empowered to speak
>and who should not. I dont see how we can fairly do that.

And nor do I, for what that's worth. I don't see how "we",
whichever actual "we" is at issue, can do it with a straight
face, either. But that isn't quite the point I want to make -
which is in (a) above, that (in effect) censoring the lunatic
fringe - some of whom, like David Jacobs, are regarded as
mainstream geniuses, of course, such is the oddity of the field
- is wrong in principle. The principle *isn't* free speech,
because any nutter can get an audience one way or another (Mark
Pilkington charges very reasonable rates to set up a website),
but simply dissemination of information. It's in the interests
of the sane to know what the loopy are promoting. And the sane,
I have to harp a bit, are every bit as much in the audiences as
they are on the stand. It's also surely in the interests of the
sane to have the opportunity to haul the loopy across the
coals, either in public Q&A sessions or in the bar or over
breakfast, God forbid, or dinner.

The presentation of conferences could be rethought a trifle
too. Ever since the FT UnCons began Lynn Picknett and I have
been muttering, to absolutely no avail, at the organizers - I
use the term loosely - to set up dialogues instead of those
wondrously unproductive "panel discussions" they lay on. Lynn
thought it would be good theatre and informative to boot for
her to discuss the Turin Shroud, one-to-one, with Ian Wilson
(you bet it would be!). I suggested Colin Andrews talking
to/with/at Rob Irving. We can all, I'm sure, think of similar
oppositions - Jerry Clark versus Tony Dodd on animal
mutilations would be a nice one. John Rimmer versus the editor
of Hall's Rules for Printers and Compositors would make an
especially ripe affair. So that's a wheeze some of you in the
conference biz may like to ponder a bit.

>Let us agree a declaration like I have
>just set out (that obviously needs fine tuning) and those of
>us who accept it - on behalf of ourselves and groups we
>represent  -then issue it as a proclamation to the UFO world
>ASAP encouraging other UFO groups to sign up to the
>intiative.  The plan would be to demonstrate globally that
>we are voluntarily setting standards as regards to the
>people we invite to give our public lectures - even if it
>means not inviting some whose dramatic claims and media
>stardom would attract audiences and put money into our
>coffers. We are putting the principle of only promoting
>good, serious, defensible research and theorising first and
>any personal gain second.  This will send a small message
>that we do care about self policing UFOlogy and making
>efforts to do the right thing by educating the public -
>surely one of our primary aims.

By all means make a declaration, though I also enquire if
you've ever heard of the Haslemere Declaration and the Port
Huron Statement and know what they said, and if you haven't &
don't I shouldn't be at all surprised, because such things tend
to acquire a mantle of obscurity with some alacrity. Certainly
make plain your standards (with which, so far, I'm not
quibbling). But do bear in mind the practicalities, which
includes dragging in the punters and even making a profit, and
the principle of information. Better to set things up so that
you can expose, in all senses of the word, the woofiness of a
Max Burns or a David Jacobs than to appear prim and puritanical
and actually be censorious. It's surely not that hard to make
it clear you think such characters are bonkers - well, that you
disagree with their general drift and the basis of their
thinking, let's say - even while letting them say their piece.
Censorship, however it's dressed up, is an admission of fear
and insecurity. And the Brits ought to be last people to
indulge in censorship. Better debate the opposition openly.
Better, in other words, a public hanging than a furtive
assassination.

best wishes
Peter B

PS: On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:22:28 +0100 Tim Matthews wrote:

>It is simply not the case that UFO researchers are going
>to fund each other - so what do we do?

A hostage to fortune, this remark, if ever I saw one. Maybe UFO
researchers can't pay one anothers' wages, but one thing Tim
Matthews could at least do is extract his tardy digit and pay my
expenses for getting to and from his LUFOS conference a mere 18
months ago. Since LUFOS is plainly not a not-for-profit
organization, you'd think that the tax advantages of paying
debts would be sufficient incentive to keep the books straight.
Let other would-be speakers at Matthews's conferences be warned
by my tiresome experience.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:52:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:26:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:04:15 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:05:01 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes.

>>>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:21:11 -0400
>>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@globalserve.net>

>>>>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 23:40:42 -0500
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: Dennis Stacy >dstacy@texas.net>>.Parchment Parachutes

<snip>

Aside: Am I the only person on this list who knows how to snip,
ie, delete, stuff?

>If you read Arnold's letter to the Air Force you will see that
>he thought he was doing no more than any pilot would do. He says
>pilots are interested in speeds...and s he thought he would
>clock the speed.


Read it? Hell, given that it was part of the public record, I
published it! Now where is the evidence of Arnold's same
meticulous interest in speed in his other six reported
sightings?

<snip>

>He said the flying was so smooth he simply trimmed out
>the plane on its flight toward Yakima (set adjustments for
>speed, altitude) and let it fly itself while he enjoyed the
>scenery.

>He did this BEFORE the sighting began.

>Hence by the
>time of th sighting (a few minutes or so after he trimmed out
>his plane heading toward Yakima, according to the letter to the
>Air Force) it was not necessary for him to pay 100% attention to
>flying th airplane.

>He could do other things such as wonder about those strange
>airplanes way over there flying so close to Mt. Rainier in an
>odd echelon arrangement and he could wonder us how fast these
>new Army jets could go..... etc.
>

Yes, but at some point he tells us he not only rolled down his
left window but turned his plane parallel to the perceived path
of the objects, neither of which is necessarily cruise control
stuff. And when Arnold says, in 1947, that he trimmed out his
plane, that doesn't mean he switched on automatic pilot, since
there was no such thing at the time. So during the less than two
minute sighting time he's not only timing the objects, but
observing their flight path and distant geographical features
while rolling down one of his windows (and he certainly didn't
have power windows then, either), and turning his plane parallel
to the objects' path. Still pretty busy stuff for a casual
observation of something else's speed. It also seems to start
instantaneously. Not thirty seconds or so later and that looks
interesting, but immediately. He says the sighting lasted two
minutes or less and yet claims to have clocked it for one minute
42 seconds of that time. Pretty damn quick response time if you
ask me!

Have you ever given any thought as to how long it would take to
turn a Callair traveling at 100mph or so a full 90 degrees, that
is, from east to south, while rolling down his window? Doesn't
sound "trimmed out" to me. The beginning and end of the clock
time per se I have no problem with. But a helluva lot of
observational stuff is allegedly happening within that very
short time frame (perceived distance between mountain peaks,
flight patterns, behavior, and so on) while Arnold says he is
simultaneously rolling his window down and turning left (south).
During this same time period, don't forget, he's also compared
his cowling tool, which he had to retrieve from a pants' pocket,
to a distant DC-4 and _then_ to the distant objects. That's a
pretty damn busy 1:42 anyway you cut it.

Try whipping your cowling tool out of your pocket (while in
flight) and making two comparisons with two distant objects in
two different directions while manually rolling down your left
window and turning your "trimmed" plane south, and then tell me
if you can do all the above in a 1947 airplane within two
minutes' time or less. I don't think so.

Although I'm equally convinced you'll find a way. And that if
you can't, Rudiak can.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                             Larry Hatch Is Back

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:54:37 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:27:39 -0400
Subject: Larry Hatch Is Back


Dear EBK and list.

I'm back from Vermont, and can resume
correspondence .. after I sift thru a huge
backlog of emails of course.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                Re: Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:29:27 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:29:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much


>Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:07:48 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Elements 116 And 118 Discovered - So Much For Lazar?

>Hi everyone.

>The discovery of these two isotopes of elements 116 and 118 (see
>below) which have very short life spans strongly suggests that
>the predicted "island of stability" for elements higher than 114
>may not exist.  If these elements (and other isotopes of 116 and
>118) do have such short life spans as reported, then it would be
>very unlikely that Robert Lazar's element 115 is a stable
>element - one that has a life long enough for practical
>applications.

>Nick Balaskas

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

>PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
>The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
>Number 432 June 7, 1999   by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein

>ELEMENTS 118 AND 116 have been discovered at Lawrence Berkeley
>Lab by crashing a beam of krypton atoms into lead atoms. The
>three detectable atoms of element 118 have nuclei possessing 118
>protons and 175 neutrons for a mass total of 293. The new
>elements are even further along in the Periodic Table than
>element 114, whose existence was announced back in January 1999
>by scientists in Russia (see Update 412), and further into the
>"island of stability," the supposed nuclear regime in which
>certain combinations of neutrons and protons lead to a
>relatively long life. For all that, the atoms of element 118
>still decay after less than a millisecond into element 116 plus
>an alpha particle. Element 116 then promptly decays into element
>114 plus another alpha particle. Ken Gregorich (510-486-7860)
>led the LBL group that discovered the new nuclei.  Four of the
>team members are German nationals, which prompted DOE secretary
>Bill Richardson to emphasize the continuing value of
>international scientists working at US national labs.

><snip>

Hello Nick:

I suppose the keyword here is "relative".

Elements 116 and 118 might last for milliseconds, but that is
interesting enough if neighboring elements only last
microseconds...  3 orders of magnitude difference.

Again, (and unless I'm off-base here) the even numbered elements
seem more stable than the odd numbered ones for some sort of
geometric or numerical reason.

This in turn, makes element 115 an unfortunate choice for Bob
Lazar's dog-and-pony show.

I wish it were otherwise. At least we might have had something
solid to play with.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                            Seti@home 'Failure'?

From: John Tenney <mainorg@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:42:43 -0400
Subject: Seti@home 'Failure'?


When I joined the SETI@home project (downloaded the program and
began running it on my computer) I was close to 100% sure that I
would not detect an "alien intelligence" on my $1200.00
computer. I was interested in being involved in a project
wherein hundreds of thousands of like-minded individuals could
cooperate together with a single goal, (no unimpressive feat,
you usually can't get two people to agree on which movie they�d
like to rent). As a matter of fact over the course of the past
20 days I realized that I do belong to a minority of people
involved with the SETI@home project.

My computer is on and running 24 hours a day everyday, and
before SETI@home the majority of the time when I wasn't using
for research it just sat idle literally "doing nothing." But
after I downloaded the program for SETI@home my computer was no
longer a $1200 paperweight, it was doing something, whether it
was doing correctly or as predicted did not matter to me, at
least it was doing something.

Now when I read newspaper articles about the �failures� of the
SETI@home project, how disenchanted people are with it, how much
of a waste of time and energy it is, I'm left wondering a few
questions.

1. Did everyone expect to find "extraterrestrial intelligence"
on his or her computers?

2. Was there something else more "important" that your computer
could have been doing while it ran it's screensaver SETI
program?

3. Is a project a failure when it unites 500,000 people from all
over the world to achieve a common goal?

4. So is that it does everyone give up because we still haven't
found "Extraterrestrial Intelligence?"

I agree with some of the critics points such as, SETI@home
should have been more up front about the trouble that they were
experiencing; but none the less I'm still glad that they tried
and will continue trying. I support them in their effort and
applauded them for the success they and WE have already
achieved.


Thank you
Rev. John E.L. Tenney
Co-Founder Michigan Anomalous Information Network
http://members.tripod.com/~mainorg

UFO UpDates has a SETI@home team, visit their webpages at:
http://memebrs.tripod.com/~ufoseti
and
http://www.spookyfox.freeuk.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                     Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:41:32 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:47:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99


>From: Richard G Brown <rgbrown@web.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99
>Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:46:00 -0700

>>From: Rense E-News <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
>>To: Rense E-News  <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
>>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:40:01 -0600
>>Subject: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99

>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
>>----------------------------------------------------------------

><snip>

>> * From Jeff's Desk *

<snip>

>>>From Robert Collins, 6-4-99, <LesMiserable@sprintmail.com>:

>>The following is an account of the meeting I (the source) was
>>involved in with EBE-2.

>>On March 5, 1983, I was at Los Alamos National Laboratories
>>conducting business on a counterintelligence project.  During

><snip>

>>EBE-2 explained the weather of it's planet which was dry,
>>varying temperature between 65-90 degrees.  There was 35
>>hours of constant sunshine and three hours of darkness

>I know I'm going to regret this... But how can a planet have
>such vastly unequal periods of day and night? 35 hours to 3?!?
>Shouldn't they be relatively equal?

>Even in a binary system it couldn't be consistant enough to be
>35 and 3 every day could it?

>- Confused in Canada

Dear Confused in Canada:

I'm suffering from jet-lag and brown beer, and I can only think
of one solution.

'EBE-2" is describing a planet with two suns,  i.e. somehow
involved in an unlikely dance with a double-star system.

The only alternative would be a planet with a wildly variable
period of rotation!

I cannot imagine a living thing on such a world.

In short,  [to borrow a phrase from Bruce Maccabee]

" Sounds like a crock to me. "

Very best wishes

- Larry Hatch

PS:   Someday I will learn how to spell Macabbee.

=  =  =  =  =





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:26:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:45:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 99 11:49:54 PDT

>>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:50:47 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 99 08:26:28 PDT

>Hi, Dennis and listfolk:

>>Arnold may well have been aware of the writings of the people
>>you mention. But judging from his own writings, he based his
>>belief that UFOs were some type of living organism on his own
>>experiences. See the following, for example:

<snip>

>From time to time (though fairly rarely), UFO witnesses have
>reported the sensation that what they were observing was a
>living object. On June 1, 1933, a mountain climber on Everest
>told of seeing winged objects which "seemed to pulsate in and
>out as though they were breathing."

Jerry:   I have only one source for that event, Phenomena
Spatiaux (the defunct quarterly) issue #25 from decades ago.

That account indicated some unknown day in May of 1933. Do you
have a better source which firms up the June first date for
1933?

If so, I would like to use that date since it is more precise.

Incidentally,  the PS account described two black sausage shapes
which hovered in the wind, expanding and contracting as if
breathing. [ All of this on the assumption that I translated
properly of course. ]     If there were wings attached,  they
didn't get into my highly abbreviated listing.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:30:41 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:08:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:59:56 -0500 (CDT)
>From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 08:53:27 -0500
>>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>...

>>If memory serves, I recall reading years ago an account of
>>seemingly living UFOs in Brad Steiger's book, "The Gods of
>>Aquarius" (I'm working from memory here so don't hold my feet
>>to the fire on the author and title).

<snip>

>Based on the rapid evolution of our own technology, is it really
>so surprising that an incredibly advanced technology might not
>manifest machines that have attributes of living things?

>Even today NASA is experimenting with craft that modify their
>own missions.   And we've had the lightbulb what, 100 years?

>-Brian

Dear Brian:

I have been toying with exactly that idea lately.

Namely,  an advanced (but comfort loving) society, or 10, or 100
or thousands of them. If they are the least bit like us,  they
will want to learn more and more, for less and less.

The most efficient way to do this is with very very intelligent
probes.

Such probes (endowed presumably with high logical intelligence)
could spread outward at high speeds, reporting back at light
speed say,  and still satisfy the needs of societies with a
longer life-spans and attention-spans than we typically see
here.

Specimen gathering and analysis does more than suggest itself,
it literally falls of its own weight .. perhaps even explaining
a few human abductions,  not the millions that some might
suggest.

We are not insects by any means, but neither are baboons.

We do things to monkeys that they must find frightening, all in
the name of science.

A colony of starfish might also be interesting to such  probes,
but starfish cannot make UFO reports.

We cannot predict what will be important to advanced societies,
but my bet is that they will have some sort of scientific
curiosity.

People in the 1600s, asked to predict the future, might dream
wistfully about more accurate clocks,  gate hinges that don't
squeak and clothing that is easier to wash.

A precious few of them were hard at work making better
telescopes, even back then.

In short,  I think Brian may have suggested something far more
likely than EBEs. How about EIPs? (Extraordinarily Intelligent
Probes)  i.e. devices so smart, robust and mobile that we cannot
distinguish them from living beings?

Maybe they short out once in a while just to reset their
circuits.

Here's a question:

Lets assume that our own technology advances at today's dizzy
rate (instead of exponentially accelerating as in fact presently
obtains!)

Will we do anything much differently than what I just described
above?

Are we indeed alone in the universe?  Of course not.

Then, what's so silly about hypothesizing long-lived,
infinitely patient intelligent machines peeking and poking
around a planet as biologically interesting as this one?

Please consider the opposite hypothesis.

Its even sillier.


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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

               Re: Kenneth Arnold's Sighting [was: Re: Voyager

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:43:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:01:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Sighting [was: Re: Voyager


From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:47:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:25:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Sighting [was: Re: Voyager


Regarding:

>Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:10:18 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>



>Bruce,

>In your 'Complete Sighting...' report, you refer to the
>following extract from Arnold's letter to the Air Force:

>"There was a DC-4 to the left and to the rear of me
>approximately fifteen miles distance, and I should judge, at
>14,000 ft. elevation".

>"I knew they [the objects] must be very large to observe their
>shape at that distance, even on as clear a day as it was that
>Tuesday. In fact I compared a zeus fastener or cowling tool I
>had in my pocket - holding it up on them and holding it up on
>the DC- 4 - that I could observe at quite a distance to my left,
>and they seemed smaller than the DC-4; but I should judge their
>span would have been as wide as the furtherest engines on each
>side of the DC-4".

>You then comment:

>"Arnold provided an estimate of size in an indirect way: he
>stated that they appeared to be comparable to the spacing of the
>engines on a DC-4 (4 engine propeller driven, 117 ft wingspan, 94
>ft length, 27 ft height) which he had seen at a distance which he
>estimated as 15 miles. He estimated the engine spacing to be 45 -
>50 ft, although 60 ft would have been a better estimate. By this
>means he was essentially providing an angular size for the
>objects: the equivalent of about 60 ft at 15 miles. He reported
>the size of the objects as 45 - 50 ft by comparison with the
>airplane as if the plane had been at the same distance as the
>objects. However, the plane was not at the same distance, so a
>correction for the distance difference is necessary.

>It is possible to make an estimate of the size of the objects
>assuming his estimate of the distance to the DC-4, 15 miles, was
>(approximately) correct. (Here comes some math and geometry, so
>if you are squeamish about such subjects, skip over the next four
>sentences.) Using the outer engine spacing as 60 ft, the angular
>size at his estimated distance is 60/(15 x 5280) = 0.00076
>radians or about 2.6 minutes of arc (1 degree = 60 minutes =
>0.0174 radians). Projecting this angle to 20 miles, the rough
>distance of the objects, would yield a size of about (20 x 5280 x
>0.00075 = ) 80 ft. Had he overestimated the distance to the DC-4
>(if it had been less than 15 miles away) the calculated angular
>size, and hence the calculated object size would increase. If he
>underestimated the distance to the DC-4, then the calculated size
>would decrease. My own suspicion is that he overestimated the
>distance and that therefore the objects were larger than 80 ft in
>length. Unfortunately no investigator pursued this size estimate
>at the time and with Arnold's death many years ago it is no
>longer possible to improve the size estimate".

There's another way to estimate the size based on his
observations when the objects were passing in front of the Mt.
Rainier snowfields.  He said that when seen edge on, they almost
disappeared and seemed to be a long dark line about 20 times
longer than thick.

Retinal cones are about 0.4 minarc in size at the center of our
vision, where our acuity is best.  Image blur because of
diffraction through our pupils also limits the retinal image
width of any arbitrarily thin line imaged by our eyes to about
0.4 minarc.   (Likely this is no coincidence, but an example of
evolution converging to an optimal value.)

What this means is that we can detect isolated high contrast
dark lines against bright backgrounds (like Arnold's objects in
profile) considerably less than .4 minarc (down to 2 _seconds_
of arc, believe it or not, under controlled laboratory
conditions), but the image of the line will always be perceived
to be at least 0.4 minarc thick.

The closer the very thin line is to 0.4 minarc, the darker it
will appear, which again seems to be the case with Arnold's
sighting.  0.4 minarc at Arnold's estimated 23 miles (based on
the subpeak of Rainier Arnold said they disappeared behind), is
about 14 feet thick, give or take.  If we accept Arnold's 20 to
1 length to thickness estimate on face value, this would place
the length at around 280 feet (again give or take).  This would
be about the size of a 747.

If, on the other hand, Arnold was off on his length-thickness
ratio by a factor of 2, which is quite possible (and close to
the way he drew it in his letter to AF intelligence), then the
length would be half that, or about 140 feet.  This is around
737 size.

I will compare this estimate with that immediately below, based
on Arnold's comparison with a distant DC-4.


>In your paper, 'Still in Default' - 'Originally Published in the
>Proceedings of the 1986 MUFON International Symposium. Updates
>to 1998 in square parentheses', you wrote:

>[Note: a very complete analysis of Arnold's sighting has been
>published in the  Proceedings of the International Conference of
>the Mutual UFO Network, 1997. In that much longer paper I point
>out that Arnold compared the apparent size of the UFO to the
>spacing between engines on DC-4 aircraft - 117ft wingspan, 94 ft
>long, 23 ft fuselage height - which he thought was about 15 miles
>away.

>The point is that since Arnold could see the engines on the
>aircraft at 15 miles - or even if it was only at 10 miles - then
>he had better than average visual acuity.

This is a tricky point.  I don't know the exact dimensions for
wing thickness and engine size, and Arnold was also looking from
underneath by maybe 4 or 5 degrees and getting a projection.
Let's say the wings were 2.5 feet thick and the engines 5 feet
from Arnold's perspective.  That would be close.  The cabin
would be about 10 feet across.  What would Arnold see from 15
miles?

The engine cross-section would subtend about 0.2 minarc, the
wings about 0.1 minarc, and the cabin about 0.4 minarc.  Notice
the same 0.4 minarc threshold mentioned above.  We can detect
isolated elements (dots, lines) this thickness or thinner, but
they will all appear to be equally thick.  However, they will
not appear to be equally dark.

So if Arnold could detect this at 15 miles, what he would
probably see would be a long thin line of uneven darkness.
There would be a dark spot where the cabin was (and maybe a
faint vertical line for the tail), not-so-dark spots for the
engines, and a faint, almost invisible line for the wing proper.
This is a difficult detection task, but certainly possible.

Another visual acuity task is our ability to detect separations
between nearby objects instead of objects in isolation.  This is
the standard eyechart acuity test in the doctor's office with
which most people are familiar.  20/20 English acuity (6/6
metric) means the eyechart letters are designed to be 5 minarc
high and made of lines and gaps 1/5th of this, or 1 minarc.
Therefore 20/20 acuity means the person can just resolve lines
separated by 1 minarc.

Probably close to half of the healthy adult population has
corrected visual acuity of 20/15 or slightly better.  Mine,
e.g., has been tested down to 20/12 under controlled laboratory
conditions.  Better acuities than this are known, but rare.
20/8, or .4 minarc acuity seems to be the absolute limit, and
again is related to retinal cone and diffraction image size.

This introduction to letter-type acuity tasks relates to the
spacing between such things as the engines and the cabin on the
DC-4.  Are they resolvable at 15 miles?  The spacing between the
cabin and the inner engines would be about 20 feet, and at 15
miles this corresponds to about .85 minarc, or 20/17 acuity,
right smack in the middle of the expected best acuity for a
normal population.  So the answer is yes.  At 15 miles Arnold
could make out these things if he had perfectly normal acuity
and no signficant uncorrected eye blur.  Judging by what he
reported, it seems that Arnold's eyes had no need for any
optical correction.

Arnold's detection task would obviously have been even easier if
the plane were closer, say 10 miles instead of 15 miles.  The
engines would now look like fairly dark spots, and easily
separable from the cabin.  It is certainly possible he
overestimated the planes distance by this amount since he was
eyeballing the distance in this case with no landmarks for
comparison.

>Since the engines were about 60 ft apart and since the UFOs were
>farther away than the airplane the estimated size of the UFOs
>would be 80 - 120 feet.)]
[End]

A 10 mile distance would also gives us size estimates for the
unknown objects close to those derived from the other visual
observations of Arnold outlined above.

60 feet at 10 miles scales to 138 feet at 23 miles.  Compare
that to the estimated 140 feet based on the length/thickness
ratio.

Let's not put too fine a point on the exact numbers given the
obvious uncertainties and assumptions.  But the objects, if they
were at 23 miles, were comparable in size to conventional
jetliners of today like the 737.

These sizes are not "huge" (as Easton put it in another post).
Dr. Alan Hynek, who apparently knew little of measures of human
acuity, claimed that Arnold could not have seen something
thinner than 3.0 minarc, instead of the actual value 0.4 minarc.
(Hynek confused acuity measures and also didn't understand that
the 3 minarc value he used referred to the overall size of a
letter acuity target, not the lines and gaps that made it up.)
This threw off his estimates of size by a factor of 7.5.  As a
result, he came up with the absurd numbers that the objects
would have had to be over 100 feet thick and 2000 feet long.
This would indeed be "huge" for an aircraft, but it was grossly
in error.

Hynek used this nonsensical calculation to dismiss Arnold's
sighting, even after he left the Air Force as a consultant.
Instead Hynek proposed that Arnold probably saw a formation of
jets 6 miles distance.  However, if you scale to 6 miles and use
Hynek's erroneous figures, the "jets" would have had to be 25
thick thick and 500 feet in length.  Hynek never seemed to see
the absurdity of his own arguments.

Interestingly if you read Ruppelt, he notes that Blue Book,
using similar acuity argumentation to mine and assuming Arnold
had the distance about right, placed the size in the 210 to 280
foot range.  (Some other AF consultant was apparently much
better informed than Hynek on such matters.)  I think it was
about half that figure if Arnold's two separate observations
were to be internally inconsistent.

>When considering all the probabilities, should your above point
>be taken into account?

>Is it being accepted that Arnold claims to have seen the DC-4s
>engines at 15 miles, i.e., sufficiently that he could use this
>observation in a rough calculation?

If Arnold had normal visual acuity and no significant optical
blur, then he could have just seen the positions of the engines
at 15 miles.

>If the DC-4 was 15 miles distant as Arnold claimed, how do we
>quantify "better than average visual acuity" then; would it be
>above average, exceptional or incredible?

See above arguments.  20/20 is considered "average," 20/15
somewhat above average (and very common), and something like
20/12 or better would be considered exceptional to incredible
(like 20/8).  Based on sighting details like his ability to
detect the objects as a thin line and his ability to resolve
details on the DC-4, Arnold's acuity was at least in the average
to above average range, maybe better, even without a corrective
prescription.

>In his letter to the Air Force, Arnold also wrote:

>"I observed the chain of these objects passing another snow-
>covered ridge in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams, and as the
>first one was passing the south crest of this ridge the last
>object was entering the northern crest of the ridge. As I was
>flying in the direction of this particular ridge, I measured it
>and found it to be approximately five miles so I could safely
>assume that the chain of these saucer like objects were at least
>five miles long".

>You have referenced this 'five mile' chain in the 'Complete
>Sighting...' paper, i.e., "Since the length of the 'chain' of
>objects was about 5 miles (paragraph H [as] above), the leading
>object was about 5 miles south of Mt. Adams when the last object
>passed Mt. Adams".

>What Arnold doesn't explain here is that he DID NOT measure this
>ridge at the time.

What possible difference does it make?

>At least according to the details in his book, when he writes,
>"Between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams there is a very high
>plateau with quite definite north and south edges. Part of this
>chain-like formation traveled above this plateau towards Mount
>Adams, while part of the formation actually dipped below the
>near edge. As the first unit of these craft cleared the
>southernmost edge of this background, the last of the formation
>was just entering the northern ridge.

>I later flew over this plateau in my plane and came to a close
>approximation that this whole formation of craft, whatever they
>were, formed a chain in the neighbourhood of five miles long".

>So, the 'five miles' estimate wasn't in fact made until later,
>quite different from the impression given in his Air force
>letter.

>Would you agree that seems to be correct?

Again, what difference does it make?  At some point he flew over the ridge
and _measured_ it.

Like his clocking of flight time between Mt. Rainier and Mt.
Adams, this was an objective measurement and gives us some idea
of how spread out the objects were. (It's also another
indication of how methodical Arnold seemed to be.) If the ridge
was 25 miles from his position, then the objects subtended an
angle of about 5/25 = .2 radian or 11 degrees.  You can scale
for various distances to get the approximate distance between
objects.

Say they were those giant American White Pelicans (AWPs) only 1
mile away.  The linear formation would have been spread over a
distance 1/25th of 5 miles or about 1000 feet, each AWP
separated by about 125 from the one in front.  Unfortunately
flocking birds flying in formation have to be within a few feet
of one another to get the energy saving benefits of flocking.
So even at a distance of only 1 mile, the distance between
objects would be far too great to have been birds in formation.

If you try to salvage the situation by bringing the "pelicans"
ten times closer to only 500 feet and 12 foot separation, only
somebody flying with a white cane could fail to see them for
what they were.  If Arnold could make out the engines of a DC-3
at  10-15 miles, as indeed he could with normal visual acuity,
he could easily have made out the large pelicans at 1 mile, much
less 500 feet.

We still await Easton's explanations to all the fatal objections
that have been raised to his bird theory.  To repeat:

1.  How to AWPs (or any bird) flash brightly in plain daylight
against a snow field background?

2.  How can AWPs outfly Arnold's plane on a parallel course?

3.  How could the linear formation of objects subtend the angle
reported by Arnold and still be flocking AWPs.


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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                   Fwd: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90

From: Philip Mantle - QUEST <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:40:16 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:46:21 -0400
Subject: Fwd: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90



From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
To: Philip Mantle - QUEST <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: URGENT NEWSFLASH - BELGIUM 1989/90
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:09:01 +0100


URGENT NEWSFLASH

Dear All,

Important News!

Eric Morris, Director of the British UFO Studies Centre, who
works with me and others to expose the truth behind an important
element of the UFO cover-up since 1945, made a potentially very
important discovery today at the International Air Show at
Woodford (British Aerospace), near Manchester.

In long and casual conversation with a Belgian Air Force pilot
Eric encouraged him to talk about the Belgian "UFO" incidents of
1989/90. Amongst other things, Eric claimed not to be able to
remember the name of the Belgian Colonel who made official
public statements on this matter but the pilot volunteered the
name 'De Brouwer' in any case.

The pilot made a categorical statement that what, in fact, had
happened was a cover-up whereby misleading statements had been
put out to both press and public. He claimed that the REAL TRUTH
OF THE MATTER was that a military delta-planform aircraft had
been operating at the time of the sightings. He added that the
Belgian Air Force wanted to divert attention AWAY from any
suggestion that advanced military hardware had been seen.

And what better cover than the (tried and tested)
aliens-in-our-midst disinformation.....? One might well ask the
question; was the UFO community a more than willing accomplice
to this official lie?

This is, arguably, an excellent example of the little-known but
highly relevant "Federal Hypothesis" which, bluntly stated,
argues that "some UFOs are controlled not so much by an
Intelligence as by an Intelligence Agency."

This is an intriguing story to say the least and I recommend
that people read Chapter 9 of my book "UFO Revelation - The
Secret Technology Exposed?" (Blandford 1999, pp.102-113) for a
better explanation of what took place ten years ago. It is
highly likely that the aircraft flew from a facility in the
South-West of England.

We believe that recent sightings of a similar low-speed aircraft
are evidence of a highly advanced triangular Lighter-Than-Air
(LTA) hybrid vehicle with inherent stealth ability - the result
of its' construction from a Kevlar-based composite materials.
(This aircraft is not dissimilar to those proposed by the Aereon
Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey from the late 1960s
onwards.)

The near-silent "humming" associated with these aircraft may be
little more than airship propulsion technology in action. On the
other hand US maverick scientist Michael Walden, whose own LTA
technology was tested by the military at Nellis AFB in 1976/7
and which remains classified to this day, believes that an
advanced "ionic propulsion" system is in use - which might help
explain the blue coronal discharges seen by witnesses on
occasions - and the unusual burning 'electrical smell' reported
in some cases.

During the much-reported Burmarsh Incident (Kent) of early 1997
(see Jerry Anderson/UFOMEKs excellent report on this) a
triangular aircraft was seen near the Lydd Army ranges (other
sightings have taken place near military facilities - Larkhill,
DTEO West Freugh, RAF Boscombe Down, RNAS Yeovilton and Warton
British Aerospace being the most obvious). Given that the
British ARMY is developing new types of UAV and reconnaissance
platforms we believe that it is they who are testing these
aircraft, in the UK at least.

No wonder "government insiders" like Nick Pope want us all to
believe that the military doesn't have this type of technology.
No wonder it is so easy, on the odd occasion, for the military
to operate these advanced aircraft over the heads of an
as-yet-unsuspecting public who are repeatedly told, by glossy
UFO publications, UFO personalities and by sources associated
with the military/industrial complex, that these are 'alien
vehicles' and/or "evidence" of 'recovered alien technology'.

Tim Matthews








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                          BWW Media Alert 19990613

From: Bufo Calvin <BufoCalvin@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:21:55 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:02:45 -0400
Subject: BWW Media Alert 19990613


Bufo Calvin
P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Internet: BufoCalvin@aol.com
Website: <A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin">http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin
</A>
<A HREF="http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/bwnl">Bufo's WEIRD NEWS LINKS</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/bufosweirdworld">Link
to Amazon.com
</A>
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this
edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD provided that attribution is made to
http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin. It is good etiquette to check with
strangers before you e-mail them something. If you forward this, please make
sure it is clear that you are forwarding it).

June 13, 1999

Kind of a slow week�

As usual, let me know what you think at <A HREF="mailto:
bufocalvin@aol.com">BufoCalvin@aol.com
</A>.

On to the listings: Times are generally Pacific.

LIVE EVENTS (Lectures, conferences, etc.)

WHAT: 20th anniversary ROCKY MOUNTAIN UFO CONFERENCE (one of the major annual
conferences).  Speakers include: Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle; Marilyn J. Sprinkle;
John Carpenter, UFO Abductions at Home and Abroad; Cristianne Quiros,
Alien-Human hybrids on Earth; Jack "Kewaunee" Lapseritis, the BIGFOOT/ET/UFO
Connection; Ann Druffel, How to Defend Yourself Against Alien Abduction;
Lyssa Royal, Lloyd Pye, Our Alien Ancestors; Richard Haines, CE-5: Close
Encounters of the Fifth Kind
WHEN: June 16 through June 20
WHERE: UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING
HOW MUCH: $85, plus workshop fees
CONTACT: 1-800-448-7801 ext. 2

WHAT: Workshop with psychic Tricia McCannon on CLAIMING THE POWER WITHIN
WHEN: Saturday, June 19, 10:00 AM and Sunday June 20, 2:00 PM
WHERE: Redwood City Womans Club 149 Clinton St., Redwood City, California
HOW MUCH: $133
CONTACT: Charles Grotsky at 650 343-5202

WHAT: Lecture by Dr. Steven Greer of CSETI on ET Contact
WHEN: Thursday, June 24, 7:30 PM
WHERE: Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists. 1924 Cedar St. (@
Bonita).  Berkeley. California
HOW MUCH: $10
CONTACT: Global View Communications, 510-540-6143


RADIO

Eddie Middleton's very popular show in the South, Nightsearch, has a website
at
<A HREF="http://listen.to/nightsearch">http://listen.to/nightsearch<;/A>.
Starting soon, the new website at
<A HREF="http://www.nightsearch.net/">http://www.nightsearch.net/<;/A>.
Unfortunately, no streaming audio. Sundays from 2:00 to 4:00 PM (Pacific).
The call-in line is 901-365-1430.

Don Ecker, of UFO MAGAZINE, hosts STRANGE DAZE on the Liberty Works. It can
be heard on streaming Real Audio at
<A
HREF="http://www.broadcast.com/radio/talk/lwrn">http://www.broadcast.com/radio
/talk/lwrn
</A>.

Mike Jarmus, REALITY AND BEYOND, 7:00 PM Sundays,
<A HREF="http://spectrum.orn.com/omega.ram">http://spectrum.orn.com/omega.ram
</A>. Streaming audio available

Sunday, June 13, Joanne Lauck, author of The Voice of the Infinite in the
Small: Revisioning the Human-Insect Coonection

ART BELL - DREAMLAND
Currently, the most popular talk show on this area.
<A HREF="http://www.artbell.com/">http://www.artbell.com/<;/A>. Live streaming
audio (and video) available.

JEFF RENSE - SIGHTINGS
Jeff is well-versed on the topics, but likes to let the guests speak,
resulting in one of the best radio shows on these topics. You can hear Real
Audio of the show, and there are archives as well. Go to
<A HREF="http://www.sightings.com/">http://www.sightings.com/<;/A> for more
information. The show is on at 7:00 PM Pacific Monday through Friday, and
8:00 PM Pacific on Sunday. You can hear it anywhere through your computer.
Please note that Jeff also often covers topics which I do not consider
relevant to this list. To subscribe to the Jeff Rense Weekly E-news (which
includes articles and a complete guest listing), e-mail (subject: Subscribe)
<A HREF="mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net">mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net</A>.

Sunday, June 13, 8:00 PM, Rayelan (Russbacher) Allan: an Amazing Life
Wednesday, June 9, 7:00 PM, Michael Lindemann, Weekly UFO/World report
Thursday, June 10, 7:00 PM, Dr. Louis Turi on Nostradamus Divine Astrology
readings
Friday, June 18, 7:00 PM, Kevin Randle and Russ Estes on alien abductions

PAUL WILLIAMS & SCOTT CARR: UFO DESK
This New York show has been around for years, but is now available on
streaming audio. The website is
<A
HREF="http://www.escape.com/~paulw/ufodesk.html">http://www.escape.com/~paulw/
ufodesk.html
</A>. It runs at 8:00 PM (Pacific) on Sundays.

JEFF MISHLOVE AND THE VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY
Webcast every weekday at 8:00 PM for two hours, with a repeat at 10:00 PM.
Webcast at
<A HREF="http://www.wisdomradio.com/">http://www.wisdomradio.com/<;/A>.

TELEVISION

A&E (USA)

Wednesday, June 16, 4:00 AM, EXTRATERRESTRIALS (UFOs)
Friday, June 18, 4:00 AM, ALIEN ABDUCTIONS

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL (Europe)

Tuesday, June 16, 3:00 PM (GMT+1), SECRETS OF THE PSYCHICS (James "The
Amazing" Randi debunks people claiming paranormal powers)

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL (USA)

Monday, June 14, 9:00 PM, ROSWELL
Tuesday, June 15, 12:00 AM, ROSWELL

THE HISTORY CHANNEL (USA)

Sunday, June 13, 10:00 AM, HAUNTED HISTORY: NEW ORLEANS
Sunday, June 13, 11:00 AM, HAUNTED HISTORY: NEW ENGLAND
Next Tuesday, June 22, 5:00 PM, ANCIENT ALIENS (ancient astronaut evidence)
Next Tuesday, June 22, 9:00 PM, ANCIENT ALIENS (ancient astronaut evidence)
Next Wednesday, June 23, 1:00 AM, ANCIENT ALIENS (ancient astronaut evidence)

THE LEARNING CHANNEL (USA)

Next Thursday, June 24, 6:00 PM, BIGFOOT (John Waters)
Next Thursday, June 24, 9:00 PM, BIGFOOT (John Waters)

LOCAL CABLE (USA)
BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED (I'm short on time this week, so I'm going to list it
the way it was sent to me...trimmed down for dates only):
SUNDAY CH 56 1:30 AM MANHATTAN NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORK NY
JUNE13,1999 JENNY SMEDLEY AUTHOR #1 BESTSELLER IN THE UK "RIPPLES
Jenny speaks about her past life with Garth Brooks then known as Ryan
Fitzgerald
JUNE20,1999 BETTY,BOB,BECKY ANDREASSON LUCA A four part series on how there
family survived multiple abduction experiences. They are the family that many
books have been written on there experience such as The Andreasson Legacy,
also The Andreasson Affair. 'AWESOME SHOWS' DON'T MISS"
JUNE 27.1999 *PART 2 OF THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY

SUNDAY CH35/80/96 930PM CABLEVISION OF WOODBURY NY
JUNE13,1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PART 1 ABDUCTIONS

MONDAY CH27 10AM CABLEVISION OF RIVERHEAD NY
JUNE 14.1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PART 2 ABDUCTIONS

MONDAY CH 59/37 11PM CABLEVISION OF YONKERS NY
JUNE 14.1999 ABDUCTIONS PART 2

TUESDAY CH 34 830PM CABLEVISION OF YORKTOWN HEIGHTS NY
JUNE 15, 1999 ABDUCTIONS PART 2

TUESDAY CH 6 830 PM COMMUNITY TV OF SANTE FE, NEW MEXICO
JUNE 15, 1999 MARIA FIX SPIRIT COMMUNICATION

TUESDAY,
JUNE QUEENS QPTV CH 56 10PM JENNY SMEDLEY AUTHOR "RIPPLES"

WEDNESDAY CH 12 830PM GATEWAY ACCESS 12 SPRING CREEK NY
JUNE 16, 1999 LOUIS TEA LEAF READER

WEDNESDAY PAC 8 OF LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO CH 8 4PM
JUNE 16, 1999 SAME AS ABOVE DATES

WEDNESDAY CH12 MINNESOTA CABLE ACCESS TRAC 12 4PM & 1130PM
JUNE 16.1999 ABDUCTIONS PART 3

THURSDAY CH 25 5PM CABLEVISION OF HAUPPAGUE NY
JUNE 17, 1999 LOUIS HANDWRITING ANALYSIS

THURSDAY CH 27 10 AM LTV OF EASTHAMPTON NY
JUNE 17, 1999 ABDUCTIONS PT 3

FRIDAYS CH 8 9PM PAC 8 TV OF LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO
JUNE 18, 1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PT 2 ABDUCTIONS

FRIDAYS CH 99 930PM CABLEVISION OF BROOKHAVEN NY
JUNE 18, 1999 BILL MARSHALL "ASTROLOGER " PART 2

TO CONTACT JANET OR TO BE A GUEST ON HER TV SHOW
WRITE TO: BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED
JANET RUSSELL
POB 311
MEDFORD NY 11763
EMAIL: Rosebuds6@aol.com
Website: http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html
Beyond The Unexplained with Janet Russell

MTV (USA)

Monday, June 14, 1:30 PM, ROAD RULES: AUSTRALIA (includes "haunted hotel")

THE SCIENCE CHANNEL

New schedule again, since March 29.
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 9:00 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE (don't know
which one)
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 9:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Weekdays, 10:00 AM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 5:00 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 5:30 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Weekdays,6:00 PM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Every day but Monday and Sunday, 1:00 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Every day but Monday and Sunday, 1:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Tuesdays through Saturdays, 2:00 AM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 9:00 AM and 9:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S
MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 5:00 PM and 5:30 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S
MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
Saturdays, OUT OF THIS WORLD all day long

THE SCI-FI CHANNEL (US Feed)

Tuesday, June 8, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #3024 (Israeli UFOs; near-death
experiences; Bigfoot; "UFO defense manual")
Wednesday, June 9, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #3025 (Hangar 18, UFOs and
the Air Force; psychic detective; reincarnation; alien abductions; life on
Mars)
Thursday, June 10, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #3026 (UFO technology;
trauma-induced ESP; Bahamian Obeah rituals; Mexican UFOs; intuitive healing)
Friday, June 11, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4027 (UFO tape; psychic
detective; alien autopsy: Bigfoot)
Monday, June 14, 11:00 AM  SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4028 (psychic detective; Queen
Mary ghosts)
Tuesday, June 15, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4029 (haunted farm; Israeli
UFOs; premonition of plane crash)
Wednesday, June 16, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4030 (Martian life;
Colorado haunting; Iranian UFOs)
Thursday, June 17, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4031 (multigeneration alien
contact; blind echolocators; Bigfoot museum; faith healing; spirits in Peru)
Friday, June 18, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4032 (Georgia UFO; psychic
detective; dreams; haunting)
Tuesday, June 22, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4033
Wednesday, June 23, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4034
Thursday, June 24, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4035
Friday, June 25, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4036

SPACE (Canada)

Sunday, June 13, 7:30 AM, MYSTERIOUS FORCES BEYOND (psychic healing)
Sunday, June 13, 12:30 PM (time zone unknown), ANIMAL X-FILES (Jersey Devil;
Howick Falls monster in South Africa)
Sunday, June 13, 5:30 PM, IN ADVANCE OF THE LANDING (a well-respected
examination of UFO beliefs ((pre Heaven's Gate...from 1991)
 ___________________________

This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!"
____________________________






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

               Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same

From: Donnie Shevlin <donnies@codamc.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:47:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:57:56 -0400
Subject: Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same


>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:02:41
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>Subject: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets Of Data



Hi all, EBK, Stig...

Well now, finally something right up my alley. Being a project
manager over software development, I feel his pain. I understand
exactly what is happening there. Low end computers, short on
availability of computers and overwhelming demand from the end
user, I've been there too many times to count.

What I don't understand is why they only converted days 1/7/99
and 1/8/99. I know the data is large for a full day, but why
only the two days? The size of the work_unit.txt file is only
384K. And how may seconds of data in a work file, 107 seconds?
So that would be;

((48hrs x 60min)x60sec) / 107sec = roughly 1600 files@384K

Now 1600 files at 384K is just little over 600 megabytes of
data. In these days of cheap high capacity hard drives, that's
not a lot of data.

Secondly, the 'parceling the raw data' process should be fairly
easy. The files are small so the process must be quick. I have
written applications that can turn 200 megabytes of processed
data out over a 6 hour period. So they could easily had turned
out plenty of data over a two week plus period. So why only two
days? Are there problems in the raw data files? I hope not.

Why didn't they just tell us there was a problem and to hold on
processing until the problem was corrected? Anyone who deals
with software would know that the end users time is valuable. To
waste their time will make them unruly and question your ability
to deliver.

I always whip my unruly end users.. :)

Donnie Shevlin








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                  Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Crosses Atlantic

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:29:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:01:39 -0400
Subject: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Crosses Atlantic


This story will be released to the UK Media on 14.6.99:

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle sparks UFO Scare

by David Clarke

A MINIATURE robot aircraft survived a 2,000 kilometre
trans-Atlantic test flight guided only by remote control to a
missile range on a remote Scottish island.

The US-Navy funded UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) landed safely
at the British Army's testing range on the island of Benbecula
following a record-breaking flight.

Three other tiny drones - just ten foot long with a ten foot
wingspan - crashed and disappeared over the choppy north
Atlantic seas during the secret operation last November, And the
strange-looking aircraft - called the Aerosonde - triggered a
string of UFO sightings to the Scottish Coastguard stations as
it was guided in to land at the remote military base in the
Outer Hebrides.

A British Army spokesman said: "It's a very small robot aircraft
and its amazing that it managed to fly that distance and land
safely." The UAV used a satellite guidance system to navigate
and was programmed to avoid the worst of the North Atlantic
weather. Once it came within range of Benbecula it circled until
a US pilot on the ground was able to guide it slowly in to land
at the missile testing range.

A spokesman for Stornoway Coastguard on the Isle of Lewis said:
"All the coastguard stations in this area were warned by the
Army to keep a look out for these drones coming in from the
North Atlantic, especially in case they triggered UFO sightings.

"There were a number of people ringing in reporting having
seen UFOs at the time, one of them even said it had flown
over Stornoway."

Defence chiefs are now hailing the UAV as the strategic weapon
of the future after the successful test flight of the Aerosonde,
which is designed for "long range environmental monitoring."

Already the Royal Australian Air Force has invested 30 million
dollars into the development of a long-range UAV called Global
Hawk to carry out surveillance of neighbouring countries in
southeast Asia.

The Global Hawk, developed by Teledyne Ryan, is capable of 20
hour endurance flights of more than 5,000 km before having to
return to base.

And British Army experience who are developing their own
sophisticated unmanned aircraft say the remotely piloted drones
could be widely used on future battlefields.

UAVs are known to have played a large role in the recent NATO
campaign in Kosovo and Serbia.

Major Roy Denton of the British Army Hebrides said: "We are
involved in the development and testing of a number of unmanned
aerial vehicles.

"It's cheapter and safer than putting a serviceman into a
dangerous battlefield."





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:36:02 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:05:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome



>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100


>All this stuff about Max Burns brings up a critical issue about
>UFO credibility and the way we present ourselves in public.
>Surely that ID the issue here. It is what BUFORA utterly failed
>to read. They did the same thing with the fawning over the
>Santilli autopsy fiasco.  Although I dare say they might - not
>unreasonably - cast back the point against various Sheffield
>events that, for instance, the IUN invited the likes of Budd
>Hopkins - when he is (without medical qualification) regressing
>five year old children and promoting the image of nasty grays
>raping humans. Somehow there is not a lot of difference here.
>Both are apparently honest ufologists expressing a view that
>most of us consider not only fundamentally wrong but potentially
>destructive. We may hate these opinions but can we honourably
>suppress them all?

Interesting set of words ...  that of Burns and Hopkins being
alike (" ... not a lot of difference here"). And further, " ...
honest ufologists expressing a view that _most of us_ consider
... wrong and offensive."  And finally, " ...can we ... suppress
them all?"

Burns and Hopkins are not alike, except in that place which is
occupied by the opinions of some men (and women).  Whose
opinions certainly may not be valid, as it is with many
opinions. Name those features of each man which appear to you to
be alike... one at a time.

And expression of opinion that _most of us consider wrong_ is
another good set of words.  Who, pray tell, is MOST of US?  Is
that a group of serious researchers the likes of which _the rest
of us_ have not heard of as yet?  Ah, the MOU-fon group?  Most
Of Us Group? Never heard of 'em.  I even aksed Gesundt.

And finally, why would one wish to suppress anyone, let alone
suppress them all?  I thought they outlawed the practice of
suppressive communism in the west.

Personally, and as a witness to the good which Mr. Hopkins has
done during his lifetime, I find your telling of it offensive.
It is obvious that your opinion regarding hypnosis is not
favorable, however the reasons I've heard are inadequate to form
the solid level of belief some embrace. That many, including
psychologists and psychiatrists, differ as to the efficacy of
hypnosis, should be a warning sign to those who "believe as well
as disbelieve."  The verdict is not in, Mam. (That's an
American- ism...)

To quote Fr. Balducci, "Generalized denial stems from illogical
fanaticism..."  The opinions expressed often on this list,
regarding hypnosis as well as many subjects, sound too much like
Balducci's observation to me.  Total skepticism is completely
unjustified in this case as well.

>My argument here is not that BUFORA were right. I don't think
>they were. Free speech is no substitute for allowing nonsense to
>be set before the public in your name. But the point is one that
>requires deeper consideration as to a degree we all do the same
>thing without probably being aware of that fact. So - perhaps, a
>general consensus that we could agree and issue as a
>proclamation about is what we need to emerge from this mess. If
>we agree to abide by this working practice we would set an
>example to Ufology.

What you appear to be attempting to verbalize, is that there is
a requirement that anyone with an opinion practice a reasonable
level of responsibility in the effort.  Please, that'd be nice.
And unexpected.

Your desire for a consensus, in my opinion at least, will not
work.  First, ufology is not as yet prepared for the level of
responsible expression you and many of us, desire.  The proof of
this are various and sundry opinions expressed right here as
_fact_, opinions so diverse as to be oxymoronic.  Oh me of
little faith.

>What example? Let us all take the decision here and now that any
>public event we organise involve the invitation only of serious
>researchers who can put forward hard evidence with a
>demonstrably scientific basis and who do not endorse patently
>absurd, unscientific ideas without support. Nor that we should
>invite anyone who sets before the public a scenario that has
>damaging moral or ethical repercussions. As these things require
>common sense and someone to make a value judgement we don't want
>to set ourselves up as the thought police.  So I suggest we
>agree a second principle, if we make a value judgement and yet
>someone whom we invite still clearly offends the sensitivities
>of people out there - such responsible criticism should be
>heeded. If it is apparent there is concern over an invite then a
>free vote is offered over the net - a simple yes/no to whether
>that person should be considered suitable for invite and that
>the decision to run with that lecturer or to cancel the invite
>be abided by whatever the outcome of this vote.

Oh my Gawd!  Have you ever been involved with more than
yourself, in setting up a conference of any kind, let alone
_THIS_ subject? Huh?  What you are asking for is the ideal.  See
my previous para on idealism.

However I do have several questions...

1)  Who chooses those "serious researchers" to whom you
    referred?

2)  Please, define that "hard evidence" you spoke about!

3)  And about those sensibilities you referred to, whose
    sensibilities are you speaking of?

4)  Have you ever been to a Chinese fire drill?

> Respectfully snipped

>Comments please.

OK, how about "Oy veh ist mir!?"






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: John Heptonstall <john@mac-tcm.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 19:41:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:06:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100

>All this stuff about Max Burns brings up a critical issue about
>UFO credibility and the way we present ourselves in public.
>Surely that ID the issue here. It is what BUFORA utterly failed
>to read. They did the same thing with the fawning over the
>Santilli autopsy fiasco.  Although I dare say they might - not
>unreasonably - cast back the point against various Sheffield
>events that, for instance, the IUN invited the likes of Budd
>Hopkins - when he is (without medical qualification) regressing
>five year old children and promoting the image of nasty grays
>raping humans. Somehow there is not a lot of difference here.
>Both are apparently honest ufologists expressing a view that
>most of us consider not only fundamentally wrong but potentially
>destructive. We may hate these opinions but can we honourably
>suppress them all?

<snip>


>Comments please.

>Jenny Randles

I think the fundamental test for any 'theory' has to be that it
has sufficient direct evidence to warrant reasonable discussion.
Evidence can be witness testimony, flight logs, police data, and
any other materially significant information that an objective
reasonable person would accept as valid, or that creates room
for sensible debate.

It may be that some of this evidence has been obtained by, what
some feel is, 'dubious' means such as 'regressive hypnosis' but
that should not exclude the evidence as long as it is not the
sole basis for a theory - there has to be some material/direct
or witness recall (without recourse to hypnotherapeutic
techniques) data from which the theory can be derived.

Mouton Howe, Good, Lear, Lazar. Warren, Hopkins and numerous
others have been criticised by some UFOlogists - it appears to
me - more because of their 'findings' than the fact that they
cannot supply evidence that can be debated. That's not objective
reasoning. I also have reservations about 'regressing children'
but it may ultimately be found to be a relatively safe, and
effective, means to find out what is going on - especially if
there is an ET dimension to their experiences, and that the only
way to identify the scope and depth of the problem is to provide
such a modality in a safe, properly controlled, way. Yet we have
detractors, such as Kevin McLure, who would deny the right of
both investigator and witness to that modality - not from a
scientific or legal base, despite his weak arguments to the
contrary that have been easily shot down ( and not reported as
so by him ).

We have to extract subjective opinion from the arguments and
stick to objectivity; if say the IUN decides to publish a
theoretical argument that does not sit well with many of it's
members - tough shit - as long as the argument has supportive
evidence, as opposed to opinion, it will find it's level; those
who cannot take objectivity because it flies in the face of
their scepticism, that's their problem and they should be seen
as not capable of accepting a reasoned argument. It's not long
since Jacques Benveniste was part of a debate on TV about his
'proof' of 'the memory of water. One of the debaters, Jonathan
.... ( forgot his name, doctor and theatrical personality )
tried to argue against the theory which flies in the face of
current chemical understanding, and in the end he said he 'would
not believe it if he saw it with his own eyes'. We seem to have
more that one or two such sceptics in UFOlogy - we can do
without this, let them support their own point evidentially
before having their views widely published.

BUFORA made the fatal mistake with Max ( and regularly do ) of
failing to require supporting evidence before they entertain a
'speaker' or 'author'. The IUN must hold better standards but
have to be ready to publish views that may not be popular.
BUFORA have done that!

Unless criticism is supported by objective reasoning and
evidence, it should not be entertained; when one reads
professional magazines, it is common to find that articles, and
'letters', will not be published if they are not supported with
reasoned argument. This must become part of UFOlogy, it is not
at the moment and that detracts from the subject enormously.

This must also go for criticism of another's work, or point of
view; if the latter is based on sound evidence, then it goes
without saying that any criticism or opposing view must be
required to be accompanied by sound theoretical argument. I hope
we are all able to take criticism of our points of view - but we
should not have deal with 'emotional' outbursts which have no
evidential base.

Regards

John.

--
John Heptonstall







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

               'Strange Days...Indeed' - Tonight: Dennis Stacy

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 18:10:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 18:10:57 -0400
Subject: 'Strange Days...Indeed' - Tonight: Dennis Stacy




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

On 'Strange Days... Indeed' tonight, Dennis Stacy, co-editor
of The Anomalist, former editor of The MUFON Journal and a
man not afraid to call a crock "a crock".

Join co-host Jonn Kares and I on 'Strange Days...Indeed' as we
discuss with Dennis various aspects of UFO phenomena - the good,
the bad and the just plain damn-dumb.


The program starts at 11:00pm EST on

1010 CFRB AM - 50,000 watts 'Clear-Channel'

6070khz Shortwave

and you can listen via Media Player at:

www.cfrb.com/

You'll need to access the site using
Internet Explorer since Media Player
seems to choke using any version of
Netscape - thanks Mr. Bill!


To call the program 'live', dial:

On-Air    416-872-1010
          1-800-561-CFRB [all over North America]
          *TALK [local mobiles]





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                        Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:13:18 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 19:28:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture


>From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:11:14 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture
>To: updates@globalserve.net


>If only one person showed up, that has nothing to do with how
>good or bad the lecture was. I've been to incredible lectures
>with only 15 people in attendance and I've been to aweful
>lectures with over 200 people in attendance.

>Review the lecture in detail if you're going to knock it.


Hi Joe,

I would agree with you 100% but I think the point to get across
here is, that Max is a marked man I dont think this will change
for a long time to come, I'm sure Max is aware of this.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 18:34:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:31:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting
>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 20:06:44 PDT

<snip>

>The point remains.  You said there is no corroboration for
>Arnold's account, beyond his own  -- to most of us who don't
>quack like anti-UFO ducks -- impressive testimony.  You were
>wrong. Johnson was at the right time and the right to place to
>see Arnold's UFOs.  He thought that he saw Arnold's UFOs, and an
>FBI interviewer characterized him as "a very reliable
>individual."  (No doubt you know better and will let us know
>what a fruitcake and/or sociopath the man was.)  The rest of you
>may be interested in a useful discussion of the relationship of
>Johnson's testimony to Arnold's; see Bruce Maccabee's article in
>IUR, May/June 1995.
>

Jerry,

Again, you're a post short. I've already retracted, qualified,
amended, however you want to put it, any previous statement of
mine which you continue to interpret as my calling Arnold a
fruitcake. The original statement was made in the context of:
one does not necessarily _know_ when one is dealing with a
fruitcake or not. Now you're adding sociopath to what I said.

But here's the point: no journalist or historian would say
"Johnson was at the right time and the right to place to see
Arnold's UFOs," unless they were present with him at the time.
They would say Johnson said, stated, claimed, declared,
insisted, allowed, alleged, vowed, vouchsafed, or whatever.
However much you might wish it otherwise, Johnson's letter and
FBI interview are ultimately evidence of just that -- not the
claimed contents. They are two different and distinct things.

Before you get on your indignant high horse again, that's not to
say, ipso facto, the contents of any statement are false by
definition, as you seem to think (and persist in claiming that)
I'm always saying. It's simply to say that an allegation of
events is not the event itself. Never has been, never will be.

That said, Johnson said the objects passed over him at a
thousand feet. I'd like to see you put a telescope on an object
a thousand feet overhead going 1200 mph (or more) an hour. As
with your own UFO Encyclopedia article, Maccabee's IUR article
is also replete with its fair share of qualifiers as to the
number of objects Johnson reported,  their size, etc.

Yes, the FBI interviewer characterized Johnson "as a very
reliable individual." But based on what? A 30-minute telling of
his story? Again, the FBI statement is a subjective assessment,
not a God-given or determined fact. But since you grant the FBI
inviolate objectivity (and higher authority) in this case,
presumably that means you support all other recorded FBI
statements regarding the UFO phenomenon and its many
witnesses? Or is it just a case of the ones you support?

>>Moreover, ufology is replete with cautionary tales.

>Ufology is also replete with puzzling, well-investigated cases
>which continue to resist explanation.  One of them is Arnold's.
>The sorts of stories you cite below are notable in being so
>rare, if one puts them in the context of UFO-reporting
>generally.  On the other hand, if one considers that they are
>both photographic cases -- which long experience has taught us
>are far more likely to be bogus than other sorts of UFO reports,
>where hoaxing is relatively infrequent -- they're not rare at
>all. To the contrary, the negative resolution of these claims
>should not surprise any sophisticated observer.

You overlook one significant fact: photographic cases are much
easier to disprove than anecdotal ones. In fact, it's extremely
difficult to disprove an individual anecdote.

<snip>

>>Does this mean, ipso facto, that Arnold is in the same league?
>>Of course not. Does it mean that he _could_ be? I'll leave that
>>up to you to decide.

>Let's get this straight.  First you were intimating that Arnold
>was a fruitcake (or that this is a reasonable possibility).  Now
>you're intimating that he's a hoaxer (or that this is a
>reasonable possibility).  Which is it?

You're still a post short. But here's my answer: Neither of us
_knows_ whether Arnold is a hoaxer or not, just as we don't
_know_ how much (or whether) he may have exaggerated his first
sighting (without hoaxing). Point is, you can't eliminate either
possibility with absolute certainty, as you seem to think you
can. You're the one that's always arguing we have to turn away
from a b&w world and confront ambiguity. Well, here's your
chance.

>>By the same token, there's no compelling reason, granted Clark's
>>exalted UFO theology (in which witnesses are never confused
>>about anything, but always spot on), to argue that Arnold
>>shouldn't ascend to ufological sainthood post haste. Hey, the
>>guy was only human.

>For those of you who need a translation of the above:

>If you don't subscribe to the doctrine that UFO witnesses exist
>to be trashed, however speciously, you're a theologian.  One
>might call this the New New Ufology, or maybe just quack logic.

Here's a better translation. For the greater part of its
existence, ufology has always been, more often than not, at the
mercy of the individual anecdote. That doesn't mean every
account and individual that comes our way is automatically
suspect and therefore (to put words in my mouth) sociopathic. It
does mean you have to live with the possibility that any witness
can be seriously mistaken and/or misleading, for a variety of
reasons.

That's not an anti-UFO bias on my part, but a simple statement
of fact.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Rose Hargrove <PRIESTESSE@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:19:22 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:01:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100

> All this stuff about Max Burns brings up a critical issue about
>UFO credibility and the way we present ourselves in public.
>Surely that ID the issue here. It is what BUFORA utterly failed
>to read. They did the same thing with the fawning over the
>Santilli autopsy fiasco.  Although I dare say they might - not
>unreasonably - cast back the point against various Sheffield
>events that, for instance, the IUN invited the likes of Budd
>Hopkins - when he is (without medical qualification) regressing
>five year old children and promoting the image of nasty grays
>raping humans. Somehow there is not a lot of difference here.
>Both are apparently honest ufologists expressing a view that
>most of us consider not only fundamentally wrong but potentially
>destructive. We may hate these opinions but can we honourably
>suppress them all?

Here we go again, can we suppress all opinions that do not fit
our view of how ufology should unfold? As far as Budd not having
a medical degree is ufology taught in medical school and must
the grays be represented as spiritual teachers of mankind for
the story to be believed. I believe Dr. Mack who has a
transformational bent to his version of the gray agenda has a
medical degree but not a degree in theology. Budd has done good
honest research and I do not believe if one reviews the numerous
cases he and others have researched that the conclusion that the
grays are here to further our spiritual or ecological needs can
easily be reached.

>My argument here is not that BUFORA were right. I don't think
>they were. Free speech is no substitute for allowing nonsense to
>be set before the public in your name. But the point is one that
>requires deeper consideration as to a degree we all do the same
>thing without probably being aware of that fact. So - perhaps, a
>general consensus that we could agree and issue as a
>proclamation about is what we need to emerge from this mess. If
>we agree to abide by this working practice we would set an
>example to Ufology.

Who is going to sit on the committee that decides who may speak
and who must remain silent because their views do not align with
the majority. I believe we must be careful in our approach and
not allow irrational arguments to air in the name of ufology
however we at the same time cannot censure those viewpoints that
do not fit our own conception of what ufology should be. We risk
returning to the mindset of the good churchmen of the
Inquisition.

>What example? Let us all take the decision here and now that any
>public event we organise involve the invitation only of serious
>researchers who can put forward hard evidence with a
>demonstrably scientific basis and who do not endorse patently
>absurd, unscientific ideas without support. Nor that we should
>invite anyone who sets before the public a scenario that has
>damaging moral or ethical repercussions. As these things require
>common sense and someone to make a value judgement we don't want
>to set ourselves up as the thought police.  So I suggest we
>agree a second principle, if we make a value judgement and yet
>someone whom we invite still clearly offends the sensitivities
>of people out there - such responsible criticism should be
>heeded. If it is apparent there is concern over an invite then a
>free vote is offered over the net - a simple yes/no to whether
>that person should be considered suitable for invite and that
>the decision to run with that lecturer or to cancel the invite
>be abided by whatever the outcome of this vote.

I agree that we must be responsible and police our own but at
the same time we must not attack our fellow ufologists merely
because their conclusions do not match ours and especially if
the work presented is based on years of honest research. We must
support one another as far as we are able as there are too many
who would attack us with no real provocation as a fringe
element.

>Otherwise we face the question of setting ourselves up to make
>moral choices about who should be empowered to speak and who
>should not. I don't see how we can fairly do that. For the record
>I would certainly have voted no to Max Burns - except had there
>been a two way lecture (i.e. Max versus David so the audience
>could judge the case side by side). This is exactly what I
>proposed to BUFORA Council over the Santilli farce - that he be
>allowed a platform at Sheffield in 1995 only if the alternative
>perspective was simultaneously offered to allow free debate and
>let the audience make fair judgement. As you know BUFORA
>scuppered that plan and left themselves open to what are
>therefore utterly justified criticism to this day over the way
>they aided and abetted the autopsy promo.

I agree that Mr. Santilli put on a performance first and
foremost however there remain serious researchers like Mr.
Hopkins out there. I personally do not like to consider the
picture of technologically advanced beings with less than
positive intent toward humanity abducting parts of our populace
but sadly it may be a a conclusion that we may reach at the end
of the day. I hope it is not however covering our eyes and ears
will not make it go away.

>So when it came to Max Burns, I did not scream and shout at
>BUFORA - I protested quietly by declining to promote the lecture
>and by not accepting an invite to lecture to BUFORA during the
>next 12 months. My point was thus, I trust, made without
>fanfare.

>Rather than us now argue over a lecture that happened and which,
>frankly, by trying to stop probably made it seem more
>interesting to some than it deserved to be, lets stop blaming
>some and shouting at others and do something positive instead.
>Let us agree a declaration like I have just set out (that
>obviously needs fine tuning) and those of us who accept it - on
>behalf of ourselves and groups we represent  -then issue it as a
>proclamation to the UFO world ASAP encouraging other UFO groups
>to sign up to the initiative.  The plan would be to demonstrate
>globally that we are voluntarily setting standards as regards to
>the people we invite to give our public lectures - even if it
>means not inviting some whose dramatic claims and media stardom
>would attract audiences and put money into our coffers. We are
>putting the principle of only promoting good, serious,
>defensible research and theorising first and any personal gain
>second.  This will send a small message that we do care about
>self policing ufology and making efforts to do the right thing
>by educating the public - surely one of our primary aims.

>To me doing this is a positive outcome from the Santilli and Max
>Burns affair. We will be turning it on its head and taking a
>step forward on behalf of Ufology. So why not? Lets stop
>fretting over a lecture that's been and gone and use it as a
>springboard to agree a simple, straightforward but constructive
>policy initiative for ufology.

We must I conclude be careful not to take a giant step back
ward and begin to silence our own ranks. While we are busy
fighting amongst ourselves our detractors our even busier in
attempting to eliminate the issue altogether and all of us as
well.

Respectfully,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:14:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 19:37:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:30:47 EDT
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold
>To: updates@globalserve.net

<snip>

>Arnold's first sighting had very little to do with his later
>one.  His first one was prolonged, approximately 3 minutes,
>plenty of time for Arnold to carefully observe and think about
>what he might be seeing.  The comes through clearly in the many
>details recounted later, which, among other things, show how
>Arnold was going through a mental checklist of conventional
>explanations and doing his best to test them.  Opening his
>window to check for reflections and timing the objects between
>two prominent landmarks were among these.

>The second sighting seemingly lasted only a few seconds.  I've
>sometimes been puzzled by things I've observed flying when I
>first see them, but given 30 seconds, or a minute or two of
>observation have been able to figure them out. That's the
>difference between a brief glimpse and a fast first impression
>vs. more prolonged observation.

<giant snip>

David,

Arnold said in his letter to the Air Force that "my complete
observation of these objects...was around two and one-half or
three minutes." At 1200 mph they would have covered some 60
miles in that time (three minutes); at 1700 mph, some 85 miles.

Of his second sighting, it's difficult to determine its duration
because Arnold is so vague, although it was undoubtedly brief.
Here's his account, from "The Maury Island Episode" article:

"As I was letting down into LaGrande valley, I saw far off on my
left and a little lower than my plane an Empire Airlines (now
Air West) Boeing transport. It was an old plane but faster than
mine. Suddenly, as I continued to lose altitude, I was
confronted by a flock of what looked like ducks. I knew they
weren't ducks because they were brassy-colored and large -- at
least three feet across or possibly four or five. There were a
couple of dozen of them, possibly more, and they were bunched
and coming right at me. Eventually they swerved away -- and
because they had the flight characteristics of the first flying
saucers I decided to take after them. When I dived into the
cluster, these things, whatever they were, soared away as if I
were standing still."

Arnold says they swerved away and that he then gave pursuit,
diving into the cluster. Even if they hadn't completely passed
behind him at this point, this would seem to indicate a duration
of 30 seconds or more as opposed, say, to a "flash" duration of
ten seconds or less. It also indicates that he was able to catch
up with the cluster and dive into it, which would, again,
seemingly require at least 30 seconds or more in a plane with an
airspeed of 100 mph or so.

It's also hard to know what Arnold means when he says the
cluster (or the objects comprising it) had the same flight
characteristics as the first flying saucers, as the former were
strung out in a long line.

Does anyone know if Arnold supplies more detail on his second
sighting in his book? This was about 6:30 A.M. on July 29, 1947,
just over a month after his June 24 sighting.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                 Re: Fwd: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:13:11 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:53:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:40:16 +0000
>From: Philip Mantle - QUEST <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90

>From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
>To: Philip Mantle - QUEST <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
>Subject: URGENT NEWSFLASH - BELGIUM 1989/90
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:09:01 +0100


Hello Tim and all,

>We believe that recent sightings of a similar low-speed aircraft
>are evidence of a highly advanced triangular Lighter-Than-Air
>(LTA) hybrid vehicle with inherent stealth ability - the result
>of its' construction from a Kevlar-based composite materials.
>(This aircraft is not dissimilar to those proposed by the Aereon
>Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey from the late 1960s
>onwards.)

During a rather lengthy debate on this list some one and a half
year ago I discussed the Belgian UFO flap. Then and later one
after another explanation has been offered that proposed a
terrestrial origin. To this date, no terrestrial explanation for
the flap has come up that fitted all the facts.

As far as this hypothesis is concerned, the unknown craft of the
Belgian flap were not low speed aircraft and did not have
stealth capability.




            __________________________________________
           /    Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes    \
                      Henny van der Pluijm





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 14

             Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, 7 July 1989?

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:26:10 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:50:02 -0400
Subject: Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, 7 July 1989?


Hi All,

Can anyone help me in finding a copy of a piece of video footage
which was taken at Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, 7 July
1989?

A photographer (Yasuhiko Hamazaki) took the film and apparently
also managed to get some real close up shot's of the UFO.

The object looked like a Saturn-Shaped white object with a
prominent ring encircling it in the horizontal plane.

Any help would be appreciated.

Regards,

Roy..







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                      24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary?

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:35:47 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:51:50 -0400
Subject: 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary?


Hi All,

Does anyone have any more information on the following sighting?

On the 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary, four large Spherical,
bright orange objects , approx. fifty meters in diameter were
spotted by Meteorologists.

One of the objects was reported to have flown at 2,625 m.p.h.

I also understand the local military airbase sent up a pilot,
who subsequently located four objects at an altitude of about
four miles.

Any help would be appreciated.

Regards,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 14

              Humanoid Allegedly Found In Mason, MI, In Spring

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:22:24
Fwd Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:55:49 -0400
Subject: Humanoid Allegedly Found In Mason, MI, In Spring


Source: UFO Sightings in New Mexico and the World,

http://members.xoom.com/ufosnmw/reports/cover.html

The Lansing State Journal is real and was chosen as the 1998
Michigan Press Association newspaper of the year. Homepage:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com

Stig

***

To: ufosnw@rt66.com
From: ()
Subject: UFO Sighting Reports

Below is the result of your feedback form.

It was submitted by () on Wednesday, January 7, 1998 at 06:42:49

**

Location: Mason, Michigan

Date: Spring 1996

time: unknown
Sighting: In the early spring of 1996 (?), The Lansing (MI)
State Journal and at least one of Lansing's (state capitol)
three television stations reported that the unclothed body of a
small, thin, silvery skinned, humanoid being had been discovered
in the yard of a Mason resident when the property owners were
raking leaves. The partially decomposed body was (to the best of
my recollection) reported as being less than four feet tall and
having a larger than human head. The media reported that the
body in question was transported by authorities to the campus of
Michigan State University in East Lansing, some ten miles north
of Mason, for study.

The story was printed and aired the day following the discovery
of the "being" but was never again mentioned in the local media,
something unusual for the local news "pro's" (term used
"lightly") who typically report mundane events "tabloid style"
adnauseum, for days and even weeks after the fact.

I had been told by an acquaintance that the "being" had been
either photographed or videotaped and that those images had
appeared in either the newspaper or on the local television
newscast(s), but I can not personally substantiate if pictures
were, indeed, taken.

Nearly two years have passed since the mysterious discovery, and
there has been no media follow-up on this story that the media
dropped like a hot rock. It seems that this substantiated find,
too, was quickly and purposely covered up by someone with enough
influence and or coersive power to make the media comply,
unquestioningly and without protest, to their agenda of silence.

{UFO Sightings in New Mexico and the World}
{http://members.xoom.com/ufosnmw}
{ufosnw@rt66.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Nathan Ranger <netrangr@ufo.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:42:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:23:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100

>Hi,

>All this stuff about Max Burns brings up a critical issue about
>UFO credibility and the way we present ourselves in public.
>Surely that ID the issue here. It is what BUFORA utterly failed
>to read. They did the same thing with the fawning over the
>Santilli autopsy fiasco.  Although I dare say they might - not
>unreasonably - cast back the point against various Sheffield
>events that, for instance, the IUN invited the likes of Budd
>Hopkins - when he is (without medical qualification) regressing
>five year old children and promoting the image of nasty grays
>raping humans. Somehow there is not a lot of difference here.
>Both are apparently honest ufologists expressing a view that
>most of us consider not only fundamentally wrong but potentially
>destructive. We may hate these opinions but can we honourably
>suppress them all?

[Swish...]

[Engage Soapbox Mode]

Hey! Get a clue people.

Here we have the problem: Jenny Randles, prominent UFO
researcher and author, comes up with rules of "engagement". Her
rules. What she thinks is right. Sure. (No offense intended,
Jenny. You just happened to be standing in line during this
"fit". :) )

See people, the whole problem with ufology is the fact that
everybody wants it to be what they want it to be so they can say
"See! I _told_ you so!" in order to get that big ________ deal.
[Fill in the blank with whatever you want.] Nobody gives a _damn_
about what it (it, meaning the UFO mystery) really is, except a
few _and_ those few get the _crap_ riduculed out of them for
following some sort of scientific reasoning.

Shake a leg! Yeah, I'm talking to _all_ of you! Get serious with
this stuff instead of worrying about filling your pockets and
your speaking schedule and pushing your _pet_ theories. Don't
try to "message" the data so it will look like your pet theory.
Don't claim other researchers are "messaging" the data unless
you have real proof.

I've witnessed some of Budd Hopkins 'Nasty Gray = child-raper'
regression sessions. Pardon me, Jenny, but does Budd get the
right to call your theories damaging and misleading? You're
right that its damaging. However, its only damaging because
people like you refuse to _really_ understand how Budd does his
research. It doesn't fit your pet theory so Budd is a fraud, an
imprecise buffoon of a researcher. Keep saying it, I'm sure if
you and he get into a tussle, both your book sales will go
up.(Incidentally, I agree with many of Jenny's theories. I just
don't like namecalling in ufology. Its unprofessional and
witless.)

All researchers have their weak points. They have their areas
that give them navigation trouble. Instead of namecalling, we
should offer help. But, that doesn't happen. That might keep
Budd from selling some books or keep Jenny from keeping her
speaking schedule full.

See, thats why they call it "fringe" science. In _real_ science
things like this happen a lot less and there is a cohesive
structure to keep all the data together rather than a bunch of
profit motivated pirahnas trying to tear each other's data
apart, devour it and poop out golden oportunities to make more
profit. What if we went at atomic energy or space flight or
computer engineering this way, the world would be a FUBARed
mess! Get a clue people.

Who needs government disinformation agents? Just paint a little
blood on all the sharks and watch them eat each other!
Ufological politics is more stupid than US Government politics.
At least with government politics, there is usually a clear
objective: get elected.

Its it any wonder people look at us funny and think: "crackpot"
when they hear about us?

NetRanger
mailto:netrangr@ufo.net
http://www.ufo.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

               Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same

From: Christine Fernandes <pumpkin@netfly.com.br>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:35:42 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:07:41 -0400
Subject: Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same


>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:09:36 -0600
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Don Allen <dona@amigo.net>
>Subject: Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets Of Data

>>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:02:41
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>>Subject: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets Of Data


>>Computer users who are contributing to the SETI (search for
>>alien life) project are inadvertently wasting CPU cycles by
>>processing data that has already been scanned.

>>Due to failures in coping with the overwhelming response from
>>volunteers, the SETI@home project has been erroneously sending
>>the same packets of radio data to its 500,000 participants.

>Thanks for posting this article. It explains why I've been
>processing the same packet from a few days ago and also why my
>processed units stats haven't been getting updated. I was just
>about ready to delete Seti off my machine.

Well, since that problem is occuring now with the SETI
participants, should I still go ahead and download it on my
computer or would be more advisable to wait and see how it
unfolds? Thx for the time, Christine.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                                Housekeeping

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:06:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:06:49 -0400
Subject: Housekeeping





It seems that the posting problems I've been having for the past
week might be resolved.

A bizarreness occurred with Eudora's nndbase file here. It
somehow had a portion of a 'bounce' notification dumped into it,
in September of last year. I traced it back over many back-ups.
The problem _that_ caused didn't start to manifest until last
week. Several of us are still scratching our heads...

In trying to re-build the address file from past versions and
Sub/Un-Sub requests, some names were inadvertently overlooked
and a few subscribers haven't received mail at all for the past
few days - to them, apologies. They've been re-added.

Fingers, eyes, ears, nose and toes crossed,

ebk





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                        FYI: Possible UFO Mis-Reports

From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:04:36 PDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:32:05 -0400
Subject: FYI: Possible UFO Mis-Reports


G'day all,

Over this long weekend in Sydney (Oz) there has a 'soccer
spectacular' at the new olympic games site at Homebush.

This has involved the use of search lights and the Whitmans
Chocolates illuminated LTA observation craft in the skies of
the Western suburbs.

As a result there may the odd call-in of UFOs over Sydney.

Cheers,
Leanne  ];-)






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                          Re: Seti@home 'Failure'?

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:41:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:37:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Seti@home 'Failure'?


>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
>From: John Tenney <mainorg@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Seti@home 'Failure'? hmm
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>When I joined the SETI@home project (downloaded the program and
>began running it on my computer) I was close to 100% sure that I
>would not detect an "alien intelligence" on my $1200.00
>computer. I was interested in being involved in a project
>wherein hundreds of thousands of like-minded individuals could
>cooperate together with a single goal, (no unimpressive feat,
>you usually can't get two people to agree on which movie they'd
>like to rent). As a matter of fact over the course of the past
>20 days I realized that I do belong to a minority of people
>involved with the SETI@home project.

>My computer is on and running 24 hours a day everyday, and
>before SETI@home the majority of the time when I wasn't using
>for research it just sat idle literally "doing nothing." But
>after I downloaded the program for SETI@home my computer was no
>longer a $1200 paperweight, it was doing something, whether it
>was doing correctly or as predicted did not matter to me, at
>least it was doing something.

>Now when I read newspaper articles about the "failures" of the
>SETI@home project, how disenchanted people are with it, how much
>of a waste of time and energy it is, I'm left wondering a few
>questions.


<snip>


To whom it may concern,

Good luck trying to locate an alien intelligence with th euse of SETI.
Contact has already been made.  Humanoids from other planets have already
been (and are still coming) here by way of structured spacecraft.  SETI is a
waste of time and money, and NASA realized it earlier on.  Perhaps they know
more about this than the public is led to believe.

Save your energy, use your computer in a more constructive way, and don't
let yourself be taken in by what SETI followers are telling you about
extraterrestrial intelligence.  They don't know anything.

Cordially,

Someone who knows







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:52:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:34:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Rose Hargrove <PRIESTESSE@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:19:22 EDT
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>To: updates@globalserve.net

<snip>

>Here we go again, can we suppress all opinions that do not fit
>our view of how ufology should unfold? As far as Budd not having
>a medical degree is ufology taught in medical school and must
>the grays be represented as spiritual teachers of mankind for
>the story to be believed. I believe Dr. Mack who has a
>transformational bent to his version of the gray agenda has a
>medical degree but not a degree in theology. Budd has done good
>honest research and I do not believe if one reviews the numerous
>cases he and others have researched that the conclusion that the
>grays are here to further our spiritual or ecological needs can
>easily be reached.

<snip>

Well, then, you should take this idea up with Mr. Mack, who
apparently believes just that. And he's the one with the degree.

Research into abduction cases is virtually nonexistent these
days, unless by research you refer to repeated regressive
hypnosis sessions, which seem to be the preferred approach. Name
me a single abduction case that Mr. Mack has _ever_ investigated
above and beyond a resort to hypnosis. Name me a single case
that Mr. Hopkins is presently actively investigating above and
beyond the use of regessive hypnosis. Ditto for Dr. Jacobs.

Retrieving an _account_ of something under hypnosis is not an
investigation, but a poor cousin of same. In fact, it
substitutes hypnotic recall _in place_ of any actual
investigation.

Sorry to be the messenger...

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                 UFO, Paranormal, New Age Etc. Address List?

From: Philip Mantle - QUEST <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:47:13 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:10:31 -0400
Subject: UFO, Paranormal, New Age  Etc. Address List?


Dear colleagues,

I am trying to put together an address list (snail mail, e-mail,
phone and fax) of as many groups operating in the field of UFO
research, the paranormal, new age, earth mysteries, fortean
studies, etc, etc, as I possibly can, from anywhere in the
world.

If you can help supply such a list, recommend a web site where I can
locate them, or if you are a member of such a group, then please
contact
me direct at: pmquest@dial.pipex.com

Thank you for your cooperation with this request and please
forward this message onto any interested parties.

Regards,


Philip Mantle.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

               Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same

From: Jacques Poulet <jpoulet@chucara.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 06:52:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:13:36 -0400
Subject: Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:47:09 -0500
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Donnie Shevlin <donnies@codamc.com>
>Subject: Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets

>>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:02:41
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>>Subject: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets Of Data

>Hi all, EBK, Stig...

>Well now, finally something right up my alley. Being a project
>manager over software development, I feel his pain. I understand
>exactly what is happening there. Low end computers, short on
>availability of computers and overwhelming demand from the end
>user, I've been there too many times to count.

>What I don't understand is why they only converted days 1/7/99
>and 1/8/99. I know the data is large for a full day, but why
>only the two days? The size of the work_unit.txt file is only
>384K. And how may seconds of data in a work file, 107 seconds?
>So that would be;

>((48hrs x 60min)x60sec) / 107sec = roughly 1600 files@384K


I think you should go to the seti@home site and read carefully
the process involved. the 107 seconds you get is for a 10KHz
bandwidth. I don't remember the exact figures but there are
quite a few 10KHz bandwidth "packets" for every 107 second
period. So you're too low by a factor of 100 or so...


>Now 1600 files at 384K is just little over 600 megabytes of
>data. In these days of cheap high capacity hard drives, that's
>not a lot of data.

>Secondly, the 'parceling the raw data' process should be fairly
>easy. The files are small so the process must be quick. I have
>written applications that can turn 200 megabytes of processed
>data out over a 6 hour period. So they could easily had turned
>out plenty of data over a two week plus period. So why only two
>days? Are there problems in the raw data files? I hope not.

The amount of calculation involved is not only a matter of data
processing per say, it's a matter of calculating _all_
possibitities. A rather bigger task.

>Why didn't they just tell us there was a problem and to hold on
>processing until the problem was corrected? Anyone who deals
>with software would know that the end users time is valuable. To
>waste their time will make them unruly and question your ability
>to deliver.

I can agree on this one.

        Bye


Jacques Poulet
Phone: (514) 913-0274

http://www.chucara.com/

Fortean Files CDROM   http://members.tripod.com/jpoulet/

CHUCARA
Box 61
La Prairie, Qc
Canada  J5R 3Y1







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Jsmortell@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:32:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:17:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:30:41 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:59:56 -0500 (CDT)
>>From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>>Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 08:53:27 -0500
>>>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

<snip>

>Are we indeed alone in the universe?  Of course not.

>Then, what's so silly about hypothesizing long-lived,
>infinitely patient intelligent machines peeking and poking
>around a planet as biologically interesting as this one?

>Please consider the opposite hypothesis.

>Its even sillier.

>Best wishes

>- Larry Hatch

After reading an article on Jeff Rense's site, in Scientific
American and elsewhere, the concept of autonomous biological
entities is not silly, neither is it untenable ... even for us.

Biological entities which are able to make on the spot decisions
are being studied as we sip our Grip.  The idea is to be able to
avoid having to communicate long distances, and therefore long
time periods, in order to garner a decision from the Capo di
Tutti Probas.  The probe can make the decision all by it's self.

It's a bit like the Mars Rover probe.  It was able to decided
when to go around a rock rather than try to roll into it.
Consider the alternative, Grays which walk into walls and get
stuck in 'em.  Or mantis-like critters which devour their
abductees.  Or how about an alien with a case of the giggles?
That'd get your attention pretty quick!

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                        Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture

From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:49:31 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:21:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture


>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture
>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:13:18 +0100

>>From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
>>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:11:14 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>If only one person showed up, that has nothing to do with how
>>good or bad the lecture was. I've been to incredible lectures
>>with only 15 people in attendance and I've been to aweful
>>lectures with over 200 people in attendance.

>>Review the lecture in detail if you're going to knock it.


>Hi Joe,

>I would agree with you 100% but I think the point to get across
>here is, that Max is a marked man I dont think this will change
>for a long time to come, I'm sure Max is aware of this.


Roy,

Its not a question of whether Max is a marked man or not. His
research of the Sheffield Incident is bunk and BUFORA should not
be supporting bunk. The case is solved with plenty of evidence
to prove it. It is only the gullible that can't see that.

Mike Wootten






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:45:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:30:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


Hi,

Thanks for all the messages that flooded in over the weekend. To
be honest I had not even noticed that UFO UpDates was on the cc
list of the original Robert Moore and I thought I was only
talking to a few UK UFOlogists. I was quite surprised to see my
'spoof' went global. But no matter, it was an interesting
exercise.

Let me qualify 'spoof'. This was not really trickery. Rather it
was a deliberate exercise in taking an idea to its natural
extreme. Many people in the UK have been furious over the Max
Burns lecture saying BUFORA lost the plot by inviting him. THere
were demands for mass walk outs over the issue.

My response drew people onward and some, it appears, did not
stop to think. As I correctly noted we all appear with people
whom we don't necessarily agree with. We also all use these
people to promote our conferences. Some of those speaking out
most vociferously against Max Burns had themselves done much the
same inviting as lecturer's people who offer ideas that they
presumably have just as much mistrust about. I wanted them to
see that.

Moreover, the knee jerk reaction to what was an ill-advised
lecture in my view takes us to the terrible extreme of self
censorship that some responders recognised without being aware
that this was the very problem I wanted to illuminate.

For the record, I dont think it is either practical or desirable
that we issue a proclamation to ban lecturers we personally dont
like. I was perputrating a very British trait - irony - in a way
that is easily misconstrued, so I apologise to those who did
misconstrue it. Such a ban would not work, would provoke images
of big brother and UFO censorship and suppress ideas we
personally dont agree with. None of these things are what we
need. But as my 'suggestion' made apparent they were the
consequence of over-reacting to this lecture at which only 35
people showed up.

I did have a deeper intention though. My arguments about how we
present ourselves to the world were valid. I feel we need to
portray a more responsible image in that regard.

More fundamentally I think the concept of UFO conferences is
outmoded. What are they after all? In the UK they comprise a few
lecturers trotting around the country to this library or that
local group giving similar lectures to a small group of mostly
already converted listeners. They have their advantages - eg in
public education (which is why I always freely lecture to
educational and library sources when requested). They can raise
money for groups and I dont balk at that. But in terms of
contributing to UFO progress they are limited.

Far more beneficial, in my view, was the MIT style symposium
that has never been repeated - largely as it required a large
donation to avoid the need to charge entrance fees to those
taking part. In the absence of rich folk wanting to give us
money (er like a certain Mr Rockefeller) this should not be
perceived as an insurmountable barrier. I feel we should
re-invent the UFO conference forthwith.

I would like to see (as well as - I am not talking about banning
MUFON or BUFORA style conferences but adding to the mix) a
global series of themed events. Chosing, as MIT did, a set
topic, inviting participation months in advance from not just
UFOlogists but researchers in related relevant fields (from
physics to psychology or whatever suits the topic). Those
invited are urged to do first hand research to try to answer one
of, say, five questions set in advance by the organisers of the
conference. They are invited to present their original findings
at the event itself.

For example, if we set the topic 'car stop cases' we could
define a series of questions up front. Such as: what is the
statistical frequency by date, time, location, etc of car stop
cases? What physical forces can cause a car engine to stall?
what physical evidence should be sought in the wake of a car
stop? etc etc.   These questions then go out to UFOlogists and
mechanics and physicists etc and they are encouraged to do real,
new research around a chosen question and submit a summary of
their work - the results of which they will offer up at the
event. The event itself is then organised and - being a working
conference not a public event (although the public need not be
excluded) even the lecturers will be asked to contribute to the
costs if running the conference.

I believe that a core of contributers (who knows how many - 20,
30, 50, 100?) will be willing to pay to attend such events if
the costs are kept in check. They would do so to take part in a
real conference that is organised in such a way as to further
progress not just to offer up random lectures on topics we all
know a lot about anyway.

If a dozen such conferences on various topics were held
worldwide every year I believe we would make more progress in a
couple of years of such events (and their published findings)
than 50 years of random conferences that contribute very little
to real research.

Its a simple step to take - creating working conferences aimed
at doing ufology and involving outside participants with things
to contribute on very specialised themes. It would be a true
test of ufology's resolve to make actual progress rather than
just talk shop to one another and go around and around in
circles. I think once we started to do this instead of just
concentrating on attracting star names to sell out conferences
in Puddlewick Town Hall then science would soon begin to take us
seriously instead of laugh at us.

This is not a spoof. Its what I really believe we should be
doing as opposed to issuing proclamations that we wont invite so
and so to our next conference. On this basis anyone willing to
do real original research will have a contribution to make,
regardless of who thewy are or what we think of them. That
should be the only criterion.

Is there anyone out there who agrees with this idea enough to
set in motion a wave of real UFO conferences for the 21st
century?

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                   Re: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:20:03 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:37:16 -0400
Subject: Re: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:40:16 +0000
>From: Philip Mantle - QUEST <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90

>From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
>To: Philip Mantle - QUEST <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
>Subject: URGENT NEWSFLASH - BELGIUM 1989/90
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:09:01 +0100

>URGENT NEWSFLASH

<snip>

>...important discovery today at the International Air Show at
>Woodford (British Aerospace), near Manchester.

>In long and casual conversation with a Belgian Air Force pilot
>Eric encouraged him to talk about the Belgian "UFO" incidents of
>1989/90. Amongst other things, Eric claimed not to be able to
>remember...

<snip>

Hi Philip, Hi Tim.

Yesterday I drove out to the Quinte International Air Show at
Canadian Forces Base Trenton (about 200 km. east of Toronto).

I spoke with several of the pilots of our CF-18 fighter jets and
asked them if it was true that Canada would soon be retiring the
CF-18s because they were all close to the end of their useful
lives.  One of them told me that that these are just one of many
rumours going around and implied that the CF-18s were in great
shape.  Never-the-less two other CF-18 pilots (Captains 'Pepe'
Prevost and Mike Mirza) presented me with a personalized signed
CF-18 poster promoting Boeing, Northrop Grumman, GE Aircraft
Engines and Hughes - several companies that would make many
hundreds of millions of dollars through the sale of any new
fighter aircraft to Canada.

What is the point in my above reply?  Well, just because this
Canadian pilot expressed his views, it doesn't mean they were
correct or true or even reflected official Canadian government
plans.  Also, even if UFOs were not extraterrestrial in origin,
would there be any good reasons for our pilots, Belgian or
Canadian, to be filled in on the truth about top secret projects
or plans, even when they had encounters with these 'UFOs',
especially when they can and do talk to the public (me)?

Even with the supportive(?) evidence that was included in Tim's
post to try and make this interview with the Belgian pilot more
important than it really was, to me Tim actually strengthened
the case that the Belgian UFO sightings were truly unknowns.
Maybe Tim is now willing to consider the possibility that some
UFOs which cannot simply be explained as top secret terrestrial
projects may be of E.T. origin.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                 Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena,

From: Alexander Beletsky <riap777@chat.ru>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:50:32 +0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:14:38 -0400
Subject: Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena,


[Non Subscriber Post]

Dear Colleague,

My name is Alexander Beletsky. I am Vice-Director of Research
Institute on Anomalous Phenomena (RIAP) - an independent
scientific- research body, established in Kharkov (Ukraine) a
few years ago. We aim at scientific studies in the fields of the
UFO problem and the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence) question. The Institute makes its investigations
in close collaboration with the CIS Academy of Cosmonautics and
Russian Academy of Sciences. Please find here attached (as
Appendix I) a RIAP Information Leaflet, describing the
Institute's research programs in some detail.

To inform the international ufological community about the
results of investigations that are conducted by RIAP specialists
and other scientists in the territory of the former Soviet
Union, we started, in 1994, a special periodical: newsletter
RIAP Bulletin (RB). It is the ONLY serious anomalistic
periodical in the Commonwealth of Independent States published
IN ENGLISH. There appear in RB research articles, short
communications, book reviews, letters to the Editor, etc.

RB Vol. 1, Nos. 1-4 - Vol. 4, Nos. 1-4 have been printed and
sent to subscribers. They contain, in particular, the papers
"Post-Soviet Ufology: a View from Inside" and "Alternative
Science?", by V.V.Rubtsov; "UFOs as Objects of Study by
Terrestrial Physics", by V.A.Buerakov; "Search for Alien
Artifacts on the Moon: A Justification", by A.V.Arkhipov; "UFOs:
a Possible Mechanism of Formation, Behavior and Environmental
Impact", by V.I.Mazhuga; "The Petrozavodsk Phenomenon", by
L.M.Gindilis & Y.K.Kolpakov; "The Black Ball: a Supposed
Extraterrestrial Artifact", by V.N.Fomenko; "A Second UFO
Landing on the River Mzha", by a group of RIAP scientists, and
others. We have also published the first really comprehensive
survey of anomalous features of the famous Tunguska explosion
("The Tunguska Meteorite: A Dead-Lock or the Start of a New
Stage of Inquiry?"), written by the leading Russian specialist
in this problem - Nikolay V. Vasilyev, Member of Academy.

RIAP Bulletin is published four times per year. Subscription
rates: a life-long subscription - $100; 12 issues (three years)
- $50; 8 issues (two years) - $35; 4 issues (one year) - $20.
Airmail postage included. Back issues are still available in
limited quantities ($5 per issue, $55 a whole set - eleven
issues).

If you are interested in subscribing to RIAP Bulletin, please
let me know. I and my colleagues would be happy to inform you
about advances and prospects of ufological studies in this part
of the world. There will appear in the next RB issues, in
particular, the following papers: "A Possible Genetic Trace of
the Tunguska Catastrophe of 1908", by Y.G.Rychkov; "UFOs: False
and Genuine", by the Russian academic UFO expert Y.V.Platov;
"Did the Maori Know About the Rings of Jupiter?", by
Y.N.Morozov, and many others.

With all my best wishes and warmest regards, I remain,

Sincerely yours, Alexander V. Beletsky, M.A., Vice-Director,
RIAP

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

Appendix I

RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA, Kharkov, Ukraine

The principal trends of researches of the institute in the UFO
field are as follows: creation of an efficient system of
reconstruction of a real anomalous event on the basis of
witnesses' testimonies; formation of a unified CIS UFO data base
(in collaboration with the Expert Group on Anomalous Atmospheric
Phenomena of the Russian Academy of Sciences) and a computer
expert system to identify genuine UFOs (GUFOs); development of
physical models of GUFOs; monitoring of a place of recurrent UFO
landings on the river Mzha, near Kharkov; studies in the hidden
history of Soviet ufology.

In the SETI field, there was realized, under the guidance of
Alexey V. Arkhipov, phase I of the program "Search for Alien
Artifacts on the Moon" (SAAM) and its results were presented on
the pages of RIAP Bulletin. Besides, we have been examining some
enigmatic finds that can be considered candidate
extraterrestrial artifacts (ancient, or not so ancient). These
are the so-called "Kassimov ball" - a small (diameter some 4.5
cm) black ball of unknown origin, found in Central Russia in
1983 on the depth 7 meters, in a layer of pure red clay, - and
the remains of a strange object that obviously originated from
space and fell down near Kharkov in 1994 (judging from its
chemical composition, it is neither a meteorite, nor terrestrial
space junk).

The institute pays considerable attention to the problem of the
Tunguska explosion of 1908. We are studying statistical
parameters of the forest fall area, as well as the
biogeochemical elemental and isotopic anomalies and
population-genetic effects, revealed in the area of the
catastrophe. A state-of-the-art collection of research papers on
the Tunguska problem is now under preparation.

The Scientific Council and Advisory Board of the Institute
include such Russian and Ukrainian specialists in the UFO
problem and SETI field as Dr. E.A.Ermilov (specialist in radio
detection of aerial anomalous phenomena), Dr. V.N.Fomenko
(investigator of the famous Vashka find, as well as other
supposed ET artifacts), Y.A.Fomin (doyen of UFO studies in
Russia), Dr. L.M.Gindilis (astronomer and SETI expert), Dr.
Y.V.Platov (Vice-Chairman of the Academic UFO Study Group), Dr.
V.K.Zhuravlev (investigator of the Tunguska explosion), and
others. The Advisory Board comprehends also a group of
well-known Western scientists, scholars and engineers -
V.-J.Ballester Olmos (Spain), Dr. T.E.Bullard (USA), Dr.
R.F.Haines (USA), Dr. A.Meessen (Belgium), et al. Dr. Vladimr V.
Rubtsov, Full Member of the CIS Academy of Cosmonautics and one
of pioneers of ufological studies in the former USSR, is
Director of RIAP.

Institute mailing address:

RIAP, P.O.Box 4684, 310022 Kharkov-22, Ukraine.

Internet e-mail address:

<riap777@chat.ru>;

Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Starship/1527/

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





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:32:16 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:53:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Rose Hargrove <PRIESTESSE@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:19:22 EDT
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>I agree that we must be responsible and police our own but at
>the same time we must not attack our fellow ufologists merely
>because their conclusions do not match ours and especially if
>the work presented is based on years of honest research. We must
>support one another as far as we are able as there are too many
>who would attack us with no real provocation as a fringe element.

This seems to be a basic problem in the attitude of many
ufologists, perhaps caused by too much use of the phrase "the
ufological community". I would challenge this assumption that
there is a common "ufological community" which shares a basic
set of values and assumptions, and which should be preserved at
all costs from attacks by ill-defined groups of outsiders. Yes,
I'm against ad-hominem attacks on individual researchers (OK,
there are a few exceptions, no names no pack-drill), but I see
no reason why I should not vigorously dispute the conclusions of
"fellow ufologists" if I think they are wrong, no matter how
many decades of misguided research they have put into it. The
idea that we should all keep shtumm about the nonsense which is
often paraded in the guise of ufology, just because some nasty
bogey-man out there wants to denounce us as a fringe element, is
absurd.

Police work is tough.

My conclusions, "based on years of honest research" do not match
those of Jerome Clark, but I don't think anyone would seriously
suggest that he gives up attacking them just to support some
sort of vague idea of a united "UFO Community" circling its
waggons against a hostile outside world.

>We must I conclude be careful not to take a giant step back
>ward and begin to silence our own ranks. While we are busy
>fighting amongst ourselves our detractors our even busier in
>attempting to eliminate the issue altogether and all of us as
>well.

These sinister "detractors" would find their job even easier if
some ufologists did not make themselves unpopular by doing such
public- spirited acts as pointing out what a load of tosh people
like Max Burns are spouting. The one saving grace of the UFO
world as it is presently constitutedc is that there is at least
some internal criticism and system of checks and balances to
keep the barmier elements in check, or at least to shown that
someone is marking their card. This will impress critics more
that a Pollyanna-like love-in with everyone patting each others'
back and congratulating everyone of their "sincerity".

>Respectfully,

>Rose Hargrove

--
John Rimmer
www.magonia.demon.co.uk
Official Sponsors of the 1999 Solar Eclipse






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:58:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:13:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:52:03 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:04:15 -0400
>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>If you read Arnold's letter to the Air Force you will see that
>>he thought he was doing no more than any pilot would do. He says
>>pilots are interested in speeds...and s he thought he would
>>clock the speed.


>Read it? Hell, given that it was part of the public record, I
>published it! Now where is the evidence of Arnold's same
>meticulous interest in speed in his other six reported
>sightings?

Apparently lost forever (see post by Jerry Clark). But, there is
a question of relevance here which, I am certain, is obvious to
many if not most readers of this series of exchanges.

>>He said the flying was so smooth he simply trimmed out
>>the plane on its flight toward Yakima (set adjustments for
>>speed, altitude) and let it fly itself while he enjoyed the
>>scenery.

>>He did this BEFORE the sighting began.

>>Hence by the
>>time of th sighting (a few minutes or so after he trimmed out
>>his plane heading toward Yakima, according to the letter to the
>>Air Force) it was not necessary for him to pay 100% attention to
>>flying th airplane.

>>He could do other things such as wonder about those strange
>>airplanes way over there flying so close to Mt. Rainier in an
>>odd echelon arrangement and he could wonder us how fast these
>>new Army jets could go..... etc.

>Yes, but at some point he tells us he not only rolled down his
>left window but turned his plane parallel to the perceived path
>of the objects, neither of which is necessarily cruise control
>stuff. And when Arnold says, in 1947, that he trimmed out his
>plane, that doesn't mean he switched on automatic pilot, since
>there was no such thing at the time. So during the less than two
>observing their flight path and distant geographical features
>while rolling down one of his windows (and he certainly didn't
>have power windows then, either), and turning his plane parallel
>to the objects' path. Still pretty busy stuff for a casual
>observation of something else's speed. It also seems to start
>instantaneously. Not thirty seconds or so later and that looks
>interesting, but immediately. He says the sighting lasted two
>minutes or less and yet claims to have clocked it for one minute
>42 seconds of that time. Pretty damn quick response time if you
>ask me!>

Two minutes or less? Don't know where you got this. Says in his
AF letter 2 1/2 to 3 minutes.

>Have you ever given any thought as to how long it would take to
>turn a Callair traveling at 100mph or so a full 90 degrees, that
>is, from east to south, while rolling down his window? Doesn't
>sound "trimmed out" to me. The beginning and end of the clock
>time per se I have no problem with. But a helluva lot of
>observational stuff is allegedly happening within that very
>short time frame (perceived distance between mountain peaks,
>flight patterns, behavior, and so on) while Arnold says he is
>simultaneously rolling his window down and turning left (south).
>During this same time period, don't forget, he's also compared
>his cowling tool, which he had to retrieve from a pants' pocket,
t>o a distant DC-4 and _then_ to the distant objects. That's a
>pretty damn busy 1:42 anyway you cut it.>

>Try whipping your cowling tool out of your pocket (while in
>flight) and making two comparisons with two distant objects in
>two different directions while manually rolling down your left
>window and turning your "trimmed" plane south, and then tell me
>if you can do all the above in a 1947 airplane within two
>minutes' time or less. I don't think so.

Better ask a pilot how long it takes to turn 90 deg (perhaps
abot 20 seconds?). Would he be able to (a) use a cowling tool
for size estimate, (b) turn his plane, (c) roll down the window
in about 2 minutes time? I bet he would be able to. Pilot's out
there want to comment? How much bank angle could Arnold safely
get for a reasonably rapid but not panic turn?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                   Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:58:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:07:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:30:47 EDT
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Kenneth Arnold
>To: updates@globalserve.net


>>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>>Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:18:12 -0400
>>Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:22:39 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Regarding:

>>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 21:29:44 -0300
>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>>>I've been a bit put off by the impression being floated, by
>>>some, that Arnold was some kind of dolt who was frittering
>>>around the mountains with no particular idea of where he was,
>>>didn't know birds from jets, couldn't estimate distances or work
>>>out a speed/time problem, dispite the fact that he would have
>>>done them dozens of times during each flight.>

>>Very much appreciated. It doesn't follow that Kenneth Arnold was
>>an idiot if he made an exited, two minute, error of judgement.>

>Typical Easton vagueness. What errors of judgment? Explain IN
>DETAIL (not handwaving) how such errors of judgment allow birds
>to explain the sighting.>

>Since Arnold was MOVING at 100 mph+, for anything to fly past
>him on a parallel course they have to be flying faster than
t>his. Even _extremely gross_ errors in distance estimates or
>altitude don't affect this fundamental fact, something Easton
>apparently can't get through his head.>

>So for Arnold to have thought that "pelicans" were flying
>forward of his position instead of falling behind him, as they
>would have to because of lesser air speed, he would indeed have
>been an idiot.


A comment on Rudiak's long post/respose:

David codesn't come right out and say it, but he probably
realizes that the approach taken by Easton, Brookesmith, etc.,
which involves (a) inventing a theory which seems to agree with
PART of the sighting description and (b) ignoring or
"arguing-away" all descriptive data which conflicts with the
suggested theory, is (1) a scientific approach when one with
_care_ and _respect_ for the witness description or (2) Classic
Debunking when _little_ respect is shown for details which stand
out as likely to be well reported.

For example, Arnold's description of these things "flashing" as
would a metallic surface is concompatible with birds. Rudiak's
comment that to see them flashing against Rainier would require
reflectors much "brighter than white" (the "color" of snow) is
well taken. Birds at a mile or more, even if at Arnold's
altitude (which I doubt) would _not_ be seen in their optimum
reflectivity, and, even if they were, they aren't "whiter than
snow." Hence they would appear as _dark_ objects or dots
(depending upon how far away.

In response to this, Easton appeals to bird experts who,
apparently, aren't really aware of the conditions of Arnold's
experiment. But, anyway, the bottom line here is that birds seen
against a white background...white haze of the atmosphere or
white snow on a mountain...are not going to appear bright
compared to the background.

In a previous post I pointed out that a mirror reflection is
like looking at a piece of the sun (if the mirror is smaller in
angular size than the angular size of th sun). Hence a small
metallic object COULD give appear much brighter than the
background sky or white snow.

With regard to 2 above, let me once again bring up the speed
problem. I posted a message in which I invited interested
parties to reconstruct in some manner Arnold's sighting as if it
had been birds at some initial distance and some initial
starting direction. Whether Easton did this or not, I do not
know. What he did was avoid the consequences of this
reconstruction... In some reconstructions the birds don't even
get as far as Arnold's path eastward before he passes them.

In the reconstructions where they do pass his path, if he turned
to follow them he would realize immediately (a) that they were
close (by observing the parallax relative to distant peaks...and
if you don' understand this, better gve up trying to analyze
Arnold's sighting) and (b) he would realize very shortly that he
was catching up with them.

I presume that Easton wouldn't categorize himself as a debunker
but rather as a very careful skeptic. However, there are
"limits to rational skepticism".

When I discovered how the "experts" explained sightings years
ago (e.g., Hynek...before his apostasy, Menzel who was never
publicaly an apostate and Klass ...) I became skeptical of the
skeptics.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                     Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 6-4-99

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:58:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:15:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:41:32 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99


>>From: Richard G Brown <rgbrown@web.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  6-4-99
>>Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:46:00 -0700

>>>EBE-2 explained the weather of it's planet which was dry,
>>>varying temperature between 65-90 degrees.  There was 35
>>>hours of constant sunshine and three hours of darkness

>>I know I'm going to regret this... But how can a planet have
>>such vastly unequal periods of day and night? 35 hours to 3?!?
>>Shouldn't they be relatively equal?

>>Even in a binary system it couldn't be consistant enough to be
>>35 and 3 every day could it?

>>- Confused in Canada

>Dear Confused in Canada:

>I'm suffering from jet-lag and brown beer, and I can only think
>of one solution.

>'EBE-2" is describing a planet with two suns,  i.e. somehow
>involved in an unlikely dance with a double-star system.>

>The only alternative would be a planet with a wildly variable
>period of rotation!

>I cannot imagine a living thing on such a world.>

>In short,  [to borrow a phrase from Bruce Maccabee]

>" Sounds like a crock to me. "

>Very best wishes

>- Larry Hatch

PS: Someday I will learn how to spell Macabbee.


HA HA HA,

well, you got it right at least once!





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                Re: Humanoid Allegedly Found In Mason, MI, In

From: Jeff Westover <frequentflier66@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:19:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Humanoid Allegedly Found In Mason, MI, In


>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:22:24
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>Subject: Humanoid Allegedly Found In Mason, MI, In
>Spring 1996

>Location: Mason, Michigan

>Date: Spring 1996


I recall the aforementioned "news story" quite well. It ran on
April Fool's Day of that particular year (1996 I believe).

Jeffrey S. Westover





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                       Re: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:44:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:23:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


Off the list, Bruce has helpfully clarified some details which
have explained the full context of Arnold's letter to the Air
Force.

Confirmed is my contention that Arnold was in fact still
searching for the missing C-46 marine transporter when his
sighting occurred.

It did not take place afterwards, when Arnold was en route to
Yakima.

I'm sure we can now conclude the debatable points as much as
they ever can be.


Bruce,

In his report for the Air Force, Arnold wrote, in full:

"I had made one sweep of this high plateau to the westward,
searching all of the various ridges for this marine ship and
flew to the west down and near the ridge side of the canyon
where Ashford, Washington, is located.

Unable to see anything that looked like the lost ship, I made a
360 degree turn to the right and above the little city of
Mineral, starting again toward Rainer. I climbed back up to an
altitude of about 9,200 ft.

The air was so smooth that day that it was a real pleasure
flying and, as most pilots do, I trimmed out my airplane in the
direction of Yakima, which was almost directly east of my
position and simply sat in my plane observing the sky and
terrain".


Ashford is to the north-east of Mineral and if he made a "360
degree turn to the right" and was "starting again toward
Rainer", which is also north-east of Ashford, I'm not sure how
he was also travelling in the direction of Yakima.

The account in his later book is also different, making no
mention of 'heading towards Yakima' and stating, "It was during
this search and **while making a turn of 180 degrees over
Mineral**, Washington, at approximately 9200 feet altitude" when
he first noticed a 'bright flash'

The direction he was actually travelling in relation to the
objects is crucial and I would have to be dubious about his
'perfect' sighting conditions, as outlined in the Air Force
report.

That aside, whether Arnold was coming out of a 180/360 degree
turn, or 'cruising' due east, he was still in 'search' mode, so
what was his airspeed likely to have been?

Would he be undertaking a search at close to maximum speed, in
treacherous terrain, or would his airspeed be much less, giving
him time to hopefully spot the missing aircraft and earn an
instant ten thousand dollar fortune?

Which was, after all, why he was there in the first place.


Some further comments re the respective figures you had quoted:

Altitude: As you may have noticed, I mentioned to Don Ledger
that I had seen a reference to pelicans being known to migrate
at over 14,000 feet, considerably higher than your estimate
(although it maybe makes no difference).


Visibility: I'm not sure if I've highlighted this before. Glider
pilot Mike Havener, who wrote an article 'Soaring with Pelicans'
describing his extraordinary experiences being joined in flight
by these gregarious birds, was asked if he could offer an
experienced opinion on this point. He replied,

"Visibility depends on several factors. The one having the most
effect of course is how much 'haze' or other particulate matter
is in the air (i.e. smog, smoke). At low altitudes, visibility
is lowered because of this.

Myself, (a pilot with average eyesight) I can distinguish the
basic shape (a body with wings) of these pelicans from about 4
miles when flying above the haze. From 4 to maybe 6 miles they
become small dots. Beyond that, I'd say they would probably not
be distinguishable other than some sort of relative motion that
may catch your eye".

Presumably we keep in mind that Arnold noted how perfect the
visibility was that day.


Speed: It might be a mistake to underestimate just how fast
these birds can fly. Although awkward on the ground, with that
10 feet wingspan they are majestic in the air and I've already
provided wonderful evidence from Mike Havener that a flock of
pelicans were comfortably flying with him at 52 m.p.h. Mike also
writes in his article that, "I reluctantly sped up to 80 m.p.h.
to put some distance between us".

There's maybe another factor to consider. If any formation of
birds observed a larger object flying towards them, it seems
reasonable that they're likely to accelerate and get out of the
way, possibly reaching their top speed if necessary.


So what if - and we are only considering 'what if' calculations:

Arnold's airspeed was closer to 60 m.p.h. and our conceivable
birds were travelling at 30 m.p.h., or some identical ratio
where Arnold's speed is twice as fast - say, 80/40.

Plus, the 'objects' are first sighted four miles away

At 60 m.p.h., Arnold's approaching them at 1 mile per minute.

After 1 minute, if said birds remained stationary, they are
still three miles away.

Except that they are moving towards Arnold's flight path at 5
mile per minute.

At what angle though?

Anyway, at some point, they theoretically pass Arnold's flight
path, heading in the approximate direction of Mt Adams.

They're also still heading away from Arnold and if he turns his
airplane **due south**, they will continue to travel further
away.

Arnold will eventually make some headway towards them, however,
if he has already decided these objects are much further than
they truly are, there's no point in him pursuing them.

So far as I can see, there's no evidence that he did.

We do know that after one minute and forty seconds, he's
determined they are already at Mt Adams and distant, hardly
visible objects.


Does this scenario allow the possibility that these were not
distant 'objects' - only some 4 miles away, yet sufficiently far
and moving fast enough to always be illusory against the snow
covered mountains?

If not, for the sake of a best/worst scenario, let's finish off
the discussion by upping the bird's airspeed to 50 m.p.h. -
which they can do - drop Arnold's "coming out of turn and
searching" to 60 and put the 'objects', in 'perfect visibility',
initially five miles away.

Do you reckon it's still an untenable (if unpalatable)
possibility?


James.
E-mail: voyager@ukonline.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                 The Millennium Project News - June 14, 1999

From: Paul Anderson - TMP/CPR-Canada <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:12:00 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:26:09 -0400
Subject: The Millennium Project News - June 14, 1999



The Millennium Project News
News and Updates from The Millennium Project

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

June 14, 1999

_____________________________


WEEKLY BRIEFING

A busy week on many fronts. Incredible new crop circle
formations appearing in England this year, including a stunning
new 700' formation in the famous East Field which incorporates
many design elements from past years and a huge "serpent"
companion formation in the same field, both found the morning of
June 12. Many other reports coming in as well from England, as
well as Holland and Germany.

On June 11, a number of the "mystery contrails" were seen again
here in Vancouver, including parallel and "dashed line"
formations, Xs and a perfect ellipse or three-quarters ring.
There is also a link to a report by Linda Moulton Howe on her
new Earthfiles web site about a contrail photographed in
Michigan in April, making a 90 degree turn. This is very similar
to the "L" and "Z" shaped contrails seen here in Vancouver on
May 21 and 26 repectively by myself. Similar bizarre geometric
types of contrails are being reported elsewhere now as well (in
addition to the already unusual Xs, grids and parallel lines).
As there can, based on my own observations included, be some
overlap in the characteristics / behaviour of "normal" contrails
and the "chemtrails", it is prudent and necessary to exercise
some caution when observing what is happening in the sky above
us. Not every contrail is a chemtrail. However, some of what we
have observed here over the past few weeks does seem to fit with
what many hundreds of other people are now reporting (indeed, as
I was preparing this briefing, I recieved a call this morning
from the Environmental Protection Agency in Seattle, Washington,
regarding who they could pass on reports to, as they are now
getting flooded with them) from across the US and Canada.
Something else does seem to be going on besides regular air
traffic. The question is what, and why.

Due to an ever-increasing number of submissions and reports
(thank you!) for both the contrails and radar anomalies, the
Special Research Projects section of the web site is being
revamped. Because of limited web site space and time (due to
other commitments), the number of reports and submissions is now
too great, more than expected. The archive sections will be
replaced with new reports focusing on key aspects of special
interest regarding these phenomena, as well as sample pages of
both contrail photos and radar / satellite images. Links to
other web sites, which specialize as central report and archive
listings for both the contrails and radar anomalies will be
provided (ie. archives of now hundreds of reports and
photographs regarding the contrails and extensive image archives
of the radar). These sites are recommended for anyone that is
interested in keeping track of the many latest reports and
images, and also to submit your own reports and findings. Your
reports and information are still very much welcome, but not
everything can be posted. The web site, and indeed this whole
project, is very much a work-in-progress.

One last reminder that the next Fields of Dreams crop circle
presentation is June 21 in Vancouver, BC at the Barlay Manor
House. Advance registration is recommended. Details on web site.

See below for complete listing of this week's news and updates.
Please note also that the links below take you to the relevant
sections of the web site, for quick access. The main site itself
(URL at the top of this e-mail) is a frames environment, and
viewing a page independently on its own may affect its
appearance / layout, depending also on the browser you are
using.

Wishing a good week to all of you.

Paul Anderson
Director
The Millennium Project

_____________________________


NEWS AND REPORTS

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/news.html

* How Would Humans React If ET Landed? - NIDS Roper Poll
* Filer's Files #23 - June 11, 1999
* The UFO Community on MSN Stages World Wide Watch
* Interview with Monsignor Corrado Balducci: "Other Intelligent
   Beings Exist"
* Latest Crop Circle Reports from England
* New: Crop Circle Live Update '99 from England
* Two Crop Circles Reported Witnessed Being Made by Hovering
   Light in Holland
* DA Investigating Mysterious Cow Deaths In New Mexico
* Cydonia Analysis Update from Mark Carlotto
* Evidence Mars Had Vast Seas And Big Rivers Mounting Quickly
* "Villa" on Mars
* Astronomers Discover Moon Has Thin Comet-Like Tail
* Mapping of Human Genome Sequence to be Nearly Complete
   by 2000


SPECIAL RESEARCH PROJECTS

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/srp.html

Mystery Contrails:

* Contrail Update from Vancouver, BC - June 11, 1999
* Witness Photographs Contrail Making 90 Degree Turn
* "Angel Hair", Contrails in Australia


THE MILLENNIUM FORUM

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/forum.html

* Next Fields of Dreams Crop Circle Presentation
   June 21 in Vancouver, BC






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                                Possibilities

From: Judith Dale <judithdale@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:25:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:31:49 -0400
Subject: Possibilities


Greetings All,

I've been reading all UFO UpDate posts as they hit my email.
Except in a very few instances, I see the same old nitpicking go
on and on. I came across these quotes recently:


"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical
science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly
established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted
in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our
future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of
decimals."

               - physicist Albert. A. Michelson, 1894

and:

"..so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that
anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value."

            - committee advising Ferdinand and Isabella
              regarding Columbus' proposal, 1486


Just thought I'd pass them along, perhaps as a reminder that; 1)
we don't know everything, and 2) Let's not allow our eyes to be
blinded by what we think we know exists, or is possible.

Whilst some nitpick, the barn still burns and the sightings
continue.

My thanks to all who persist in their research to discover the
truth, present their findings, and don't just spin their wheels
debating for the sake of debate.

Blessings,

Judith Dale








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                   Re: Survey: 'UFO Technology' Among Top

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:55:38
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:52:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Survey: 'UFO Technology' Among Top


[List only]

Source: Business Wire.

Stig

***

Computer, TV And Refrigerator Top Technologies Of 20th Century,
Public Survey Shows

01:02 p.m Jun 14, 1999 Eastern

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 14, 1999--Americans feel that
the invention of the computer, television, and refrigerator were
the top technological achievements of the 20th century - and
most feel that technology has made life more comfortable and has
added to the nation's economy -- according to an independent
public survey released today.

The survey -- commissioned by Harris Corporation, with support
from the University of Florida -- found that 40 percent of the
1,000 people questioned felt that the computer was the top
technological achievement of the century, followed by the
television (12%) and refrigerator (12%). Rounding out the top
five were medical advances (6%) and the Internet (5%). Other
answers ranged from such areas as "UFO technology" to video
games.

When respondents were asked what 20th century technology was
most important in their everyday lives, the computer (34%),
television (17%) and refrigerator (10%) again were ranked in the
top three, while the microwave oven (5%) came in at number four,
followed by the washing machine (3%) at number five.

An overwhelming ninety percent said that technology has made
their quality of life better, and more than half (58%) said they
could not live comfortably without 20th century technology. In
addition, a vast majority (79%) said that technologies developed
this century have created more economic opportunities and jobs.

People were most apt to say surgical advancements (38%) and the
development of antibiotics (35%) were the top inventions that
have saved more lives during the 20th century. A little more
than one in ten (11%) said seat belts in cars.

When it came to choosing which country has been the technology
leader of the 20th century, more than half (60%) said the United
States, followed by Japan (35%) and Germany (2%). However,
nearly two-thirds (64%) of the respondents felt strongly that
there should be more science- and technology-based courses in
U.S. schools.

While most technologies were viewed as positive achievements,
some were not. When asked which 20th century technologies people
wished were not developed, weapons of mass destruction came in
as the top choice (59%), followed by credit cards (10%) and
genetic engineering (9%) at a distant second and third.

An analysis of the survey findings showed some significant
differences of opinion based on various factors, such as gender,
age, and geography. Gender

Men seem a little more interested in mechanical or technological
achievements while women indicated they have more interest in
biological or medical accomplishments. When asked what they
thought might be the top achievements in the 21st century -
three times as many men said time travel or placing a human on
Mars, and nearly twice as many said an advanced automobile
engine that doesn't require fuel. Women were more apt to pick a
cure for cancer or AIDS (62% vs. 47%), or human cloning (57% vs.
43%). Generations

Age seemed to play an interesting role in some of the questions.
For example, when asked which technology they wished was not
developed during the 20th century, 70% of the teenaged
respondents said weapons of mass destruction, while 50% of
senior citizens gave that answer. Additionally, more than half
(55%) of the teens polled felt the computer was the most
important technological achievement of the 20th century, while
only about a quarter (26%) of senior citizens felt that way.
Geography

People in California seem to be less enthused about technology
than people in the rest of the country. More than half (52%) of
the Californians surveyed said they could live comfortably
without 20th century technology, compared with 41% for the rest
of the nation. Additionally, more than a quarter (27%) of the
Californians surveyed felt that 20th century technology has
created fewer economic opportunities and jobs, while only about
a fifth (21%) of the respondents in the rest of the country felt
that way. The Next Century

While the survey focused on 20th century technologies, it also
asked respondents what they felt would be the most important
technological achievements of the next century. More than half
(54%) felt that a cure for cancer or AIDS would be the top
accomplishment during the 21st century, while a fifth (19%) felt
that solving world hunger through advanced agriculture would be
the top achievement. How The Survey Was Conducted

The telephone survey was conducted May 24-27, 1999 by Systems
Research Corporation of Rochelle Park, New Jersey. SRC asked
1,000 randomly-selected consumers their feelings on 20th century
technologies. The margin of error was +/- 3%. Demographics --
Gender evenly split. -- Mean age was 41 years old.(11% were
15-18 yrs.old, 19% 19-29, 16%

30-39, 17% 40-49, 13% 50-59, 24% 60+). -- Mean household income
was $44,525 (35% were $30K or below, 29 %

$31K-$50K, 20% $51K-$75K, 8% $76K-$100K, 8% $100K+). -- Of those
surveyed, more than half (52%) said they owned a

cellular phone, 59 percent said they owned a personal computer.

Also most respondents (77%) had two or more televisions in their

home, and 93 percent said they owned a VCR. University of
Florida

The University of Florida is a public, land-grant research
university, with one of the most comprehensive programs in the
nation. Twenty-one colleges and schools offer more than 100
undergraduate majors. The graduate school coordinates almost 200
graduate programs. UF is the largest of the state's 10 public
universities, and the ninth largest university in the nation,
and has, to date, awarded 246,000 degrees. Harris Corporation

Harris Corporation has been a leader in the development of
technological innovations for more than 100 years, in areas
ranging from television and wireless communications to digital
electronics and software engineering. Harris actually started
out as a printing equipment company, and a Harris printer - the
first commercial offset lithographic press - today resides at
the Smithsonian Institution.

Harris Corporation (NYSE:HRS) is an international communications
equipment company focused on providing product, system, and
service solutions that take its customers to the next level. The
company provides a wide range of products and services for
commercial and government communications markets such as
wireless, broadcast, government systems, and network support.
The company has sales and service facilities in nearly 90
countries.

Editor's note: A photograph of today's press conference is
available via the Associated Press Photo Network and on the
Internet (newscom.com). For further information on the survey or
a graphical breakdown of the results, contact Jim Burke at
407/727-9126 or jburke@harris.com or Neal Stein at 407/727-9608
or nstein@harris.com. Additional information on Harris is also
available on the Internet : http://www.harris.com/


                          Technology Timeline

1903 The Wright brothers fly the first airplane. The flight lasted for
     12 seconds and 120 feet.

1910 The first electrically powered washing machine was invented by
     Alva J. Fisher.

1916 Frigidaire invents the first electric refrigerator.

1923 Dr. Vladimir Zworkin demonstrates an early television prototype.

1939 John Atanassoff constructed the first semi-electric digital
     computing device.

1946 Raytheon invents the microwave oven.

1951 UNIVAC (Universal Automatic Computer) becomes the first computer
     to handle both numeric and alphabetical data.

1954 Jonas Salk tested the first effective polio vaccine. Color
     television broadcasts begin.

1969 Neil Armstrong becomes the first human to walk on the moon.

1975 First consumer VCR introduced.

1977 First personal computer (Apple) introduced.

1978 The first modern, public cellular phone network is tested.

1985 Dr. Jack Copeland implants a Jarvik-7 artificial heart into
     Michael Drummond.

1994 Consumer Internet usage takes off.

1996 First digital television broadcast by a commercial television
     station in the United States.

1998 John Glenn rides a shuttle back into space, three decades after
     his first historic flight. The launch is broadcast live in
     digital HDTV by Harris Corporation.


Copyright 1999, Business Wire







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

              Re: Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, 7 July

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:13:24 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:06:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, 7 July


>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, 7 July 1989?
>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:26:10 +0100

>Can anyone help me in finding a copy of a piece of video footage
>which was taken at Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, 7 July
>1989?

>A photographer (Yasuhiko Hamazaki) took the film and apparently
>also managed to get some real close up shot's of the UFO.

>The object looked like a Saturn-Shaped white object with a
>prominent ring encircling it in the horizontal plane.

>Any help would be appreciated.


Dear Roy:

I have never seen the film, and don't know who has.  At best I
might provide a starting point.

I have the Kanazawa affair dated as 1900 hours ( local time ) on
the 6th of July, 1989. 3 observers saw a silver-white ovoid with
a red stripe pass. One J. Takanashi, presumably a ufologist
there, opined that it was possibly a plane headed for Osaka.

My source is the Mufon UFO Journal, issue # 265.

I hope this helps a little.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

  http://www.jps.net/larryhat

=  =  =  =  =





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                    Re: 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:18:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:21:28 -0400
Subject: Re: 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary?


>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary?
>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:35:47 +0100


>Does anyone have any more information on the following sighting?

>On the 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary, four large Spherical,
>bright orange objects , approx. fifty meters in diameter were
>spotted by Meteorologists.

>One of the objects was reported to have flown at 2,625 m.p.h.

>I also understand the local military airbase sent up a pilot,
>who subsequently located four objects at an altitude of about
>four miles.

>Any help would be appreciated.


Hello Roy:

My source is very likely the same as yours, to wit:

Timothy Good;  The UFO Report (1991)  page 234.

I returned the book so I cannot quote it, but I believe there
was mention of a radar confirmation for this sighting.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

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

From Tim's book, cited abov by Larry:


"24 November 1989: Papa, Hungary

   Meteorologists sighted four large, spherical, bright orange
objects, approximately fifty metres in diameter. Guyla Bazso,
from a meteorlogical station in Papa, western Hungary, reported
that one of the objects flew at 2,625 m.p.h. He contacted the
local military airbase which sent up a pilot, who located four
objects at an altitude of about four miles. All the objects
disappeared shortly after 2:00 a.m. on 25 November. (Shropshire
Star, Wellington, 27 Nov. 1989"

No mention of radar --ebk

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






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                        Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 05:23:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:32:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture

>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns BUFORA Lecture
>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:13:18 +0100



>Hi Joe,

>I would agree with you 100% but I think the point to get across
>here is, that Max is a marked man I dont think this will change
>for a long time to come, I'm sure Max is aware of this.

>Roy..

If Max is a "marked man" it is through his own making, and no
one else's.

If someone persists in making patently ludicrous claims in
spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they should
expect those  claims to be independently questioned and
scrutinised.

If that scrutiny does not exist inside the subject itself, what
will the outside world make of our standards?

But Max appears to think his material is sacrosanct, and we
should just accept his word without question.
Well tough.

At no stage during the last two years has he took a step down
from his arrogant standpoint, or accepted on one single occasion
that the evidence for his stance over this case does not stand up.
On at least three occasions of which I have recorded evidence,
Max has told witnesses and investigators not to share
information and data about the case with me - and this is the
man who is claiming there is a cover-up over this case!

Not only that, but he continues using testimony on a public
platform that has been completely discredited.

It is his insistance on carrying on with this charade, ever more
ludicrous now in the face of general disbelief even amongst
 hardcore believers, that has placed him in the position that
he finds himself at the moment.

Ask yourself this Roy: What will it take for Max to accept he is
wrong about his interpretation of this case?

He has built it up to such a level of absurdity that he stands to
lose face and reputation (if he has any left) if he compromises
on any of his claims.

This situation has been created by the man himself - any other
objective ufologist would by now have looked at the evidence
once again and found it wanting or changed their opinion.

That is the important lesson of this whole saga: namely, ufoLOGY
needs skeptics.

The UFO community should be grateful that there are people out
there who are willing and able to investigate claims in a
rigorous. objective fashion and accept the often unpalatable
conclusion that "nothing happened."

Skepticism for its own sake is equally unhelpful; but open minds
are fine as long as they are not so open the brain dribbles out!
Belief-driven investigators like Max Burns simply cannot
function in this objective way, which is what leads to the
subject having such a bad reputation.

Ufologists are continually moaning that the outside world
refuses to take it seriously, but is it any small wonder in a
subject so full of loony claims, credulity and lack of objective
investigation?

If it were not for my efforts to get to the bottom of this case,
even further ridicule would no doubt be visited upon the
reputation of British Ufology.

If we can't be honest and open about our own material, how can
be expect anyone out there to take anything we have to say
seriously?

I believe there are enough real mysteries - and yes, unexplained
aerial phenomena too - without making up new ones out of
imagination and wishful thinking.

It's time some of the true believers started getting their house
in order too, and facing the 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:08:31 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:33:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:42:40 -0400
>From: Nathan Ranger <netrangr@ufo.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100

>>Hi,

>>All this stuff about Max Burns brings up a critical issue about
>>UFO credibility and the way we present ourselves in public.
>>Surely that ID the issue here. It is what BUFORA utterly failed
>>to read. They did the same thing with the fawning over the
>>Santilli autopsy fiasco.  Although I dare say they might - not
>>unreasonably - cast back the point against various Sheffield
>>events that, for instance, the IUN invited the likes of Budd
>>Hopkins - when he is (without medical qualification) regressing
>>five year old children and promoting the image of nasty grays
>>raping humans. Somehow there is not a lot of difference here.
>>Both are apparently honest ufologists expressing a view that
>>most of us consider not only fundamentally wrong but potentially
>>destructive. We may hate these opinions but can we honourably
>>suppress them all?

>[Swish...]

>[Engage Soapbox Mode]

>Hey! Get a clue people.

>Here we have the problem: Jenny Randles, prominent UFO
>researcher and author, comes up with rules of "engagement". Her
>rules. What she thinks is right. Sure. (No offense intended,
>Jenny. You just happened to be standing in line during this
>"fit". :) )

>See people, the whole problem with ufology is the fact that
>everybody wants it to be what they want it to be so they can say
>"See! I _told_ you so!" in order to get that big ________ deal.
>[Fill in the blank with whatever you want.] Nobody gives a _damn_
>about what it (it, meaning the UFO mystery) really is, except a
>few _and_ those few get the _crap_ riduculed out of them for
>following some sort of scientific reasoning.

>Shake a leg! Yeah, I'm talking to _all_ of you! Get serious with
>this stuff instead of worrying about filling your pockets and
>your speaking schedule and pushing your _pet_ theories. Don't
>try to "message" the data so it will look like your pet theory.
>Don't claim other researchers are "messaging" the data unless
>you have real proof.

>I've witnessed some of Budd Hopkins 'Nasty Gray = child-raper'
>regression sessions. Pardon me, Jenny, but does Budd get the
>right to call your theories damaging and misleading? You're
>right that its damaging. However, its only damaging because
>people like you refuse to _really_ understand how Budd does his
>research. It doesn't fit your pet theory so Budd is a fraud, an
>imprecise buffoon of a researcher. Keep saying it, I'm sure if
>you and he get into a tussle, both your book sales will go
>up.(Incidentally, I agree with many of Jenny's theories. I just
>don't like namecalling in ufology. Its unprofessional and
>witless.)

>All researchers have their weak points. They have their areas
>that give them navigation trouble. Instead of namecalling, we
>should offer help. But, that doesn't happen. That might keep
>Budd from selling some books or keep Jenny from keeping her
>speaking schedule full.

>See, thats why they call it "fringe" science. In _real_ science
>things like this happen a lot less and there is a cohesive
>structure to keep all the data together rather than a bunch of
>profit motivated pirahnas trying to tear each other's data
>apart, devour it and poop out golden oportunities to make more
>profit. What if we went at atomic energy or space flight or
>computer engineering this way, the world would be a FUBARed
>mess! Get a clue people.

>Who needs government disinformation agents? Just paint a little
>blood on all the sharks and watch them eat each other!
>Ufological politics is more stupid than US Government politics.
>At least with government politics, there is usually a clear
>objective: get elected.

>Its it any wonder people look at us funny and think: "crackpot"
>when they hear about us?


Hi,

Not sure if you saw my 'sequel' message where I made clear that
my first posting was deliberately incitive to make a point.

Also not sure where you get the impression I am calling Budd
nasty names. Im not. I like Budd very much and am absolutely
sure he is sincere. I dont for one moment think his ideas should
not be given full consideration and I have on several occasions
happily shared a platform with him. I have not contemplated
'banning' him.

However, we disagree on many things and I am totally opposed to
the use of regression hypnosis and particularly on children. I
make no apologies for regarding this as dangerous and it has
nothing whatsoever to do with the skill and compassion I am
fully aware that Budd displays with his witnesses. It has all to
do with the risks hypnosis creates of leaving long term
psychological damage to a yoing mind.

I dont see any of this as name calling - merely expressing
reasonable doubts about a technique. Budd is completely free to
say the same about my research and I would listen to any such
criticism with an open mind. I might well find useful things
from this to alter the direction of my work. Thats how UFOlogy
should develop. None of us are perfect - certainly not me.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 99 10:19:15 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:04:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 18:34:00 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting
>>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 20:06:44 PDT


Dennis,

>>The point remains.  You said there is no corroboration for
>>Arnold's account, beyond his own  -- to most of us who don't
>>quack like anti-UFO ducks -- impressive testimony.  You were
>>wrong. Johnson was at the right time and the right to place to
>>see Arnold's UFOs.  He thought that he saw Arnold's UFOs, and an
>>FBI interviewer characterized him as "a very reliable
>>individual."  (No doubt you know better and will let us know
>>what a fruitcake and/or sociopath the man was.)  The rest of you
>>may be interested in a useful discussion of the relationship of
>>Johnson's testimony to Arnold's; see Bruce Maccabee's article in
>>IUR, May/June 1995.

>Again, you're a post short. I've already retracted, qualified,
>amended, however you want to put it, any previous statement of
>mine which you continue to interpret as my calling Arnold a
>fruitcake. The original statement was made in the context of:
>one does not necessarily _know_ when one is dealing with a
>fruitcake or not. Now you're adding sociopath to what I said.

Arnold would have been lying about an incident that would make a
mark in history (probably an even larger one than we can know
now) and that would adversely affect his family, which suffered
mightily because of the resulting notoriety and controversy.  He
stuck to this lie all his life, so that nobody, including
friends, family, and associates, ever suspected he was telling
it. He wrote a book about it.  He spoke over time in any number
of public forums about it. This sounds more like a sociopath
than a prankster to me. I'll take your word for it that you
haven't thought through the implications of what you're saying,
but I don't think my paraphrase is inaccurate or unfair.

>But here's the point: no journalist or historian would say
>"Johnson was at the right time and the right to place to see
>Arnold's UFOs," unless they were present with him at the time.
>They would say Johnson said, stated, claimed, declared,
>insisted, allowed, alleged, vowed, vouchsafed, or whatever.
>However much you might wish it otherwise, Johnson's letter and
>FBI interview are ultimately evidence of just that -- not the
>claimed contents. They are two different and distinct things.

Of course, if a reporter had been right next to Johnson at the
time he was watching Arnold's UFOs, that reporter's testimony
would be dismissed as merely anecdotal, and likely mistaken
besides.  Or maybe we'd hear speculation to the effect that the
guy was lying, and those who doubted the accusation would be
challenged to prove otherwise. Anybody who needed a conventional
explanation for the incident would revise the reporter's
testimony so that it fit whatever conventional explanation the
would-be debunker was proposing.  Just like what's being done to
Arnold himself right now, and for that matter to thousands of
other witnesses over the long, sorry history of the UFO
controversy.

>Before you get on your indignant high horse again, that's not to
>say, ipso facto, the contents of any statement are false by
>definition, as you seem to think (and persist in claiming that)
>I'm always saying. It's simply to say that an allegation of
>events is not the event itself. Never has been, never will be.

>That said, Johnson said the objects passed over him at a
>thousand feet. I'd like to see you put a telescope on an object
>a thousand feet overhead going 1200 mph (or more) an hour. As
>with your own UFO Encyclopedia article, Maccabee's IUR article
>is also replete with its fair share of qualifiers as to the
>number of objects Johnson reported,  their size, etc.


Apparently you're reading something into what I wrote that, as
far as I can see (after two rereadings, one just now), I didn't
put there.  The fact remains that you claimed there is no
independent verification for Arnold's sighting.  There is.
(There is also, of course, the huge summer 1947 that was
building around the time Arnold saw his UFOs.  It's not as if
[as one who didn't know better might think reading the
discussion on this list] Arnold's experience occurred in a
vaccum.) You may not like it, but it's time to admit that you were
mistaken.  Not the worst thing in the world to do.  We're all
wrong from time to time (remember, I once was a true believer
in psychosocial ufology), and none of us will think the less
of you for it.

>Yes, the FBI interviewer characterized Johnson "as a very
>reliable individual." But based on what? A 30-minute telling of
>his story? Again, the FBI statement is a subjective assessment,
>not a God-given or determined fact. But since you grant the FBI
>inviolate objectivity (and higher authority) in this case,
>presumably that means you support all other recorded FBI
>statements regarding the UFO phenomenon and its many
>witnesses? Or is it just a case of the ones you support?

I have no idea what you're talking about, unless it's your
desire to dismiss any testimony you don't want to hear. I have
not the least doubt that if the FBI interviewer, based on an
interview with Johnson, had judged him dishonest, you would
consider that the final word on the subject. And, ironically, I
suspect that I'd  feel the same way.

>>>Moreover, ufology is replete with cautionary tales.

>>Ufology is also replete with puzzling, well-investigated cases
>>which continue to resist explanation.  One of them is Arnold's.
>>The sorts of stories you cite below are notable in being so
>>rare, if one puts them in the context of UFO-reporting
>>generally.  On the other hand, if one considers that they are
>>both photographic cases -- which long experience has taught us
>>are far more likely to be bogus than other sorts of UFO reports,
>>where hoaxing is relatively infrequent -- they're not rare at
>>all. To the contrary, the negative resolution of these claims
>>should not surprise any sophisticated observer.

>You overlook one significant fact: photographic cases are much
>easier to disprove than anecdotal ones. In fact, it's extremely
>difficult to disprove an individual anecdote.

Let's see now.  You've gone beyond implying that Arnold was a
liar to intimating that hoaxing may be some significant part of
UFO- reporting.  Not even Blue Book would have agreed with you
there. One thing ufologists ought to have learned five decades
into the game is that while hoaxing certainly occurs, it is a
still relatively infrequent cause of UFO reports. I can't
believe we're having to have a discussion like this in 1999.

So many "UFO" photos are hoaxes for some simple, obvious
reasons: (1) they're easy to do and (2) they attract attention
in a way that few nonphotographic cases do. Perhaps you could
add a third reason: they seem to add authenticity to the
testimony.  And there's a fourth, if the hoaxer is smart enough
to look ahead: you can keep making money at it for years as the
photo gets recopied in magazines, books, and TV shows.

>You're still a post short. But here's my answer: Neither of us
>_knows_ whether Arnold is a hoaxer or not, just as we don't
>_know_ how much (or whether) he may have exaggerated his first
>sighting (without hoaxing). Point is, you can't eliminate either
>possibility with absolute certainty, as you seem to think you
>can. You're the one that's always arguing we have to turn away
>from a b&w world and confront ambiguity. Well, here's your
>chance.

And I can't eliminate with absolute certainty the possibility
that in your private life you're a serial killer, and you can't
prove I'm not one either.  Or anybody reading this.  The simple
fact of the matter is that not an iota of evidence has emerged
since June 24, 1947, to suggest that Ken Arnold was a hoaxer.
Nothing ambiguous about that.

Why are we even discussing this?

Jerry Clark









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:26:47 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:44:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:42:40 -0400
>From: Nathan Ranger <netrangr@ufo.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

>See people, the whole problem with ufology is the fact that
>everybody wants it to be what they want it to be so they can say
>"See! I _told_ you so!" in order to get that big ________ deal.
>[Fill in the blank with whatever you want.] Nobody gives a _damn_
>about what it (it, meaning the UFO mystery) really is, except a
>few _and_ those few get the _crap_ riduculed out of them for
>following some sort of scientific reasoning.


Amen - I've been a subscriber to this List for a year. I'm not a
researcher (pompous title?), just a very interested member of
the public. I can't believe how quickly any debate turns into a
swapping of insults and selective snipping of evidence to back
up ideas.

>I just
>don't like namecalling in ufology. Its unprofessional and
>witless.)

Damn right.

>All researchers have their weak points. They have their areas
>that give them navigation trouble. Instead of namecalling, we
>should offer help. But, that doesn't happen.

>See, thats why they call it "fringe" science. In _real_ science
>things like this happen a lot less and there is a cohesive
>structure to keep all the data together rather than a bunch of
>profit motivated pirahnas trying to tear each other's data
>apart, devour it and poop out golden oportunities to make more
>profit. What if we went at atomic energy or space flight or
>computer engineering this way, the world would be a FUBARed
>mess! Get a clue people.

I was with you all the way until there. This kind of behaviour
happens in the 'real' science world too - it's just that you
don't see it unless you look for it.

>Who needs government disinformation agents? Just paint a little
>blood on all the sharks and watch them eat each other!
>Ufological politics is more stupid than US Government politics.
>At least with government politics, there is usually a clear
>objective: get elected.

I can't see the field of UFO research being taken seriously when
the level of debate is similar to the arguments that my daughter
used to have with her friends a few years ago (and she's only
nine now).

Isn't it time to stop for just a minute and think about
controlling the temper tantrums and egos? Well, I can dream.

Martin Phillips





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 99 12:42:35 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:47:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:26:14 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 99 11:49:54 PDT

>>>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:50:47 -0500
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 99 08:26:28 PDT

>>From time to time (though fairly rarely), UFO witnesses have
>>reported the sensation that what they were observing was a
>>living object. On June 1, 1933, a mountain climber on Everest
>>told of seeing winged objects which "seemed to pulsate in and
>>out as though they were breathing."

>Jerry:   I have only one source for that event, Phenomena
>Spatiaux (the defunct quarterly) issue #25 from decades ago.

>That account indicated some unknown day in May of 1933. Do you
>have a better source which firms up the June first date for
>1933?

>If so, I would like to use that date since it is more precise.

Hi, Larry.  I looked up my source, cited in my encyclopedia
entry on "Space Animals," since I'd forgotten it.  The source
follows:

Smythe, Frank.  Camp Six. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1937.

Hope this helps.

Jerry Clark






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:51:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:49:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: Jsmortell@aol.com
>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:32:18 EDT
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:30:41 -0700
>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:59:56 -0500 (CDT)
>>>From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>>>Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 08:53:27 -0500
>>>>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

><snip>

>>Are we indeed alone in the universe? Of course not.

>>Then, what's so silly about hypothesizing long-lived,
>>infinitely patient intelligent machines peeking and poking
>>around a planet as biologically interesting as this one?

>>Please consider the opposite hypothesis.

>>Its even sillier.

>>Best wishes

>>- Larry Hatch

>After reading an article on Jeff Rense's site, in Scientific
>American and elsewhere, the concept of autonomous biological
>entities is not silly, neither is it untenable ... even for us.

>Biological entities which are able to make on the spot decisions
>are being studied as we sip our Grip. The idea is to be able to
>avoid having to communicate long distances, and therefore long
>time periods, in order to garner a decision from the Capo di
>Tutti Probas. The probe can make the decision all by it's self.

>It's a bit like the Mars Rover probe. It was able to decided
>when to go around a rock rather than try to roll into it.
>Consider the alternative, Grays which walk into walls and get
>stuck in 'em. Or mantis-like critters which devour their
>abductees. Or how about an alien with a case of the giggles?
>That'd get your attention pretty quick!

>Jim

Dear Jim:

By the "opposite hypothesis" I meant sending no probes out at
all, regardless of their type.

Given the likelihood of numerous intelligent societies within
this same galaxy, I would expect them to send very intelligent
probes in all promising directions.

It may well be that bio-engineered "entities" are more useful
than complete robots, but I fear that a bio-critter would be
more troublesome.

What do they do on weekends?

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:19:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:55:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:52:07 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

>>From: Rose Hargrove <PRIESTESSE@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:19:22 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

><snip>

>>Here we go again, can we suppress all opinions that do not fit
>>our view of how ufology should unfold? As far as Budd not having
>>a medical degree is ufology taught in medical school and must
>>the grays be represented as spiritual teachers of mankind for
>>the story to be believed. I believe Dr. Mack who has a
>>transformational bent to his version of the gray agenda has a
>>medical degree but not a degree in theology. Budd has done good
>>honest research and I do not believe if one reviews the numerous
>>cases he and others have researched that the conclusion that the
>>grays are here to further our spiritual or ecological needs can
>>easily be reached.

><snip>

>Well, then, you should take this idea up with Mr. Mack, who
>apparently believes just that. And he's the one with the degree.

>Research into abduction cases is virtually nonexistent these
>days, unless by research you refer to repeated regressive
>hypnosis sessions, which seem to be the preferred approach. Name
>me a single abduction case that Mr. Mack has _ever_ investigated
>above and beyond a resort to hypnosis. Name me a single case
>that Mr. Hopkins is presently actively investigating above and
>beyond the use of regessive hypnosis. Ditto for Dr. Jacobs.

>Retrieving an _account_ of something under hypnosis is not an
>investigation, but a poor cousin of same. In fact, it
>substitutes hypnotic recall _in place_ of any actual
>investigation.

>Sorry to be the messenger...

>Dennis

Hi Dennis,

No, I'm not here to "defend" Budd. I am here as a witness.
"Above and beyond hypnosis" (which doesn't happen in every case
contrary to popular belief) Budd makes calls, interviews
witnesses, does 'on site' inspections, and he even interviews
neighbors with the permission of the person reporting if it is
called for. I know he has spoken to police and to government
agencies while 'checking things out.' As witness, I can attest
to the fact that Budd is a lot more thorough than many,
(yourself included) ever give him credit for. So Dennis,

"Sorry to be the messenger"

but you're dead wrong about Budd. He may not be the best of
"investigators," (and I agree that hypnosis is being -way-
overused) but, he's an intelligent and thoughtful man that goes
about his business in an intelligent and thoughtful manner.

Making unfounded statements like the ones you
made, ie;

>Research into abduction cases is virtually nonexistent these
>days, unless by research you refer to repeated regressive
>hypnosis sessions, which seem to be the preferred approach.

>Name me a single case that Mr. Hopkins is presently actively
>investigating above and beyond the use of regessive hypnosis.
>Ditto for Dr. Jacobs.

Blanket statements such as these are meant to be dismissive and
'I assume' hopefully accepted as unquestioned fact. I'm not sure
which, but you must think that folks take on 'facts' by osmosis
(constantly hearing the same mantra over and over) or by mere
proclamation. Not so Dennis. Because you say so don't -make it
so.-

Without pulling him into anything, you should ask Greg Sandow
about how Budd "investigates" a case. He's spent a lot of time
watching him and discussing this very topic with him.

I'm with you BTW, I think that Budd and David, and John Mack
could all do a much better job. But I draw a line at sitting
idly by while people spread made up lies and malicious
inaccuracies. Or, in not speaking up when someone else does.

Again, this is just my witness testimony. I'm not "jumping on
you because you jumped on Budd" or any such sophomoric nonsense.
I speak from having worked in close quarters with Budd for 6
years Dennis. If you knew the man the way that I know him, you'd
never say an unkind word about him. No BS.

Besides, the guy has never claimed to be a "scientific
researcher" and holding him 'by force' to those standards
doesn't alter the fact that the guy is just an
author/investigator. Not an 'academic' out there as a
"scientific expert." John Mack is a different story. He's out
there as an academic. It is rightful to expect him to live up
to, (abide by if you will) academic/scientific standards. You've
just got Budd pidgeonholed into the wrong catagory. Round peg in
square hole.

If you're going to critique Budd's (or anybody elses) "methods"
it would be nice if you familiarize yourself with them first.
Fair is fair Dennis. Never say stuff -about anyone- that you
cannot prove.

Peace,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                         Re: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 99 13:14:02 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:52:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Beyond the Blunderdome


>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:30:48 -0400
>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Beyond the Blunderdome
>To: To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


Peter,

>I believe I was among if not the first to express some outrage
>in public at Budd Hopkins's regression of small children, in a
>review in "Fortean Times" of an IUN Sheffield conference in
>approximately 1993. In his presentations (which I taped, but I
>write from memory) he actually admitted the children were as
>young as two and a half.

Since this is a very serious allegation, I think we need more
than your memory here.  Could we have an exact quote from this
tape?

>I don't think Hopkins is honest, although he may be sincere in
>his own peculiar way.

Interestingly, I've more than once heard the same said of you,
for whatever it's worth.

>Nor do I think Mad Max is honest. In
>neither case, however, do I think is there is any question of
>deliberate misrepresentation or hucksterism. But it surely is
>self-deception, which I've called intellectual dishonesty (see
>UFO UpDates, passim), and for which I've been most vehemently
>reprimanded, most often by people who I'd naively expected
>would know better. That the strongest detractors are citizens
>of the United States is not, I think, entirely coincidental.

Please explain what this last sentence is supposed to mean. That
it is rendered by a citizen of the United Kingdom is not, I
think, entirely coincidental.  (Or something like that.)

Cheers,

Jerry Clark






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

               'UFO Research: Cincinnati' Site Revision/update

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:45:54 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:58:32 -0400
Subject: 'UFO Research: Cincinnati' Site Revision/update


The UFO Research: Cincinnati! website has a new look. Please
bookmark its location at:

http://home.fuse.net/ufo/

In addition to the recent revision, a most interesting news
article and follow-up report is also available from there,
regarding an alleged BIGFOOT BURIAL GROUND identified in Ohio
[as per recent mention from a Portsmouth, Ohio newspaper].

If broken images or links are found anywhere at the site, please
advise.

Thanks for your attention,

Kenny 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:02:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:00:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:08:20 PDT

>Mr. Budd Hopkins has demonstrated throughout the past twenty
>years that he is not - I repeat, NOT - a UFO investigator [or
>researcher]. He is basically a UFO reporter. And for those such
>as Jerome Clark, Mark Cashman and yourself who do not like that
>because you are friends with Budd Hopkins -- TOO BAD.

I've only met and spoken to Mr Hopkins once.

I have my problems with some of his work, but I think it is best
to frame such objections dispassionately and with careful
attention to what is attainable in this field.

I am currently at work on a critique of the problems I see in
abduction research, and I will do my best to address those
problems without reference to personalities. That's how science
should be done.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedma

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:15:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:09:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedma


>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:18:23 PDT

>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>>Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 17:41:05 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

>>Even if Walters and Strieber are the charlatans that Black
>>claims, stridency is not the way to alter their impact on
>>ufology. In regard to the Gulf Breeze case, if Mr. Black would
>>like to demonstrate with appropriate science, and in a
>>reasonable, objective tone, how to account for the following, he
>>will be doing us all a service:

>>1) How the obscuration of the object in Photo 1 and Photo 7 has
>>been accomplished. Double exposure, even with the Hyzer method,
>>has been experimentally discredited.

etc snipped.

>Also, your remarks about Gulf Breeze are well taken. I will be
>making a final report on Gulf Breeze in which I will show you
>and any objective person that all the pictures that were taken
>by Mr. Ed Walters could have -and were- taken by him in a hoaxed
>manner.

I look forward to such an analysis, which I assume will address
not only photo 19 which you mention repeatedly below, but the
stereo photos and the Nimslo photos, and the various other of
the 13 points I raised above.

>Don�t you find it
>unusual that Sainio can assert this while Hyzer cannot detect
>this using the most sophisticated equipment that is the best in
>the business?

What I have seen of the Hyzer report does not seem to deal with
the issues raised by most of the photos I mention above (points
1-13, especially those about the stereo photos).

In addition, Hyzer failed to perform the test which Sanio did
to determine whether his attribution of special double exposure
properties required to fake photos where the object was
occluded by the bush were actually present in the camera /
film combination used by Walters. This does not generate
a lot of confidence in me relative to his thoroughness.

>You sir, have to determine who is telling the
>truth and who is not. Who has an ax to grind, and who doesn�t,
>Mr. Cashman.

I'm not interested in axes or assertions. I'm interested in the
meat of the debate, which, as I've said, is, for me, in the
points I listed above, none of which have been addressed
in your response. I hope they will be addressed in your
forthcoming analysis, which I will be glad to read and add
to my collection of material on this case.

>If you would like to call me sir, I can go over some of these
>issues privately with you and have no problem with that, and
>would more than happy to do that for you Mr. Cashman

As much as I appreciate your offer, it would be contrary to the
principles of good scientific debate for your information to be
kept from the rest of the community. Please, I encourage you to
share your technical material with all of us for debate and
comment.

I apologize for the delay in this response, but my professional
activities are interfering with my ability to keep up with my
e-mail for the moment.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:25:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:20:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome



>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:52:07 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

>>From: Rose Hargrove <PRIESTESSE@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:19:22 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

><snip>

>>Here we go again, can we suppress all opinions that do not fit
>>our view of how ufology should unfold? As far as Budd not having
>>a medical degree is ufology taught in medical school and must
>>the grays be represented as spiritual teachers of mankind for
>>the story to be believed. I believe Dr. Mack who has a
>>transformational bent to his version of the gray agenda has a
>>medical degree but not a degree in theology. Budd has done good
>>honest research and I do not believe if one reviews the numerous
>>cases he and others have researched that the conclusion that the
>>grays are here to further our spiritual or ecological needs can
>>easily be reached.

><snip>

>Well, then, you should take this idea up with Mr. Mack, who
>apparently believes just that. And he's the one with the degree.

>Research into abduction cases is virtually nonexistent these
>days, unless by research you refer to repeated regressive
>hypnosis sessions, which seem to be the preferred approach. Name
>me a single abduction case that Mr. Mack has _ever_ investigated
>above and beyond a resort to hypnosis. Name me a single case
>that Mr. Hopkins is presently actively investigating above and
>beyond the use of regessive hypnosis. Ditto for Dr. Jacobs.

>Retrieving an _account_ of something under hypnosis is not an
>investigation, but a poor cousin of same. In fact, it
>substitutes hypnotic recall _in place_ of any actual
>investigation.

>Sorry to be the messenger...

>Dennis


I'll see your "name me one case" and raise you this one.... name
me those cases which had no basis in memory recall prior to
hypnosis.  You and others like you with closed minds on this and
other subjects regarding the abduction phenom, forget that many
if not most cases investigated by Hopkins and many by Dr. Mack,
have a firm basis in direct memory recall.

Like for example my own memories.

There is nothing in this world worse than a closed mind, except
perhaps, no mind at all.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                       RUFOs, JFK, and Richard Belzer

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:07:24
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:47:51 -0400
Subject: RUFOs, JFK, and Richard Belzer


Source: The Village Voice,

http://www.villagevoice.com/features/9924/vest.shtml

Stig

***

June 16 - 22, 1999

Stand-Up Conspiracist

UFOS, JFK, and Richard Belzer

by

Jason Vest

*

Washington� The baby looked utterly horrified upon beholding the
approaching man in a dark suit and even darker glasses .

And who could blame him? Even if his cognizance of the shadowy
world of conspiracy theories couldn't be articulated, the infant
seemed to instinctively know that a visit from a man in black
does not portend pleasantness. Forget the fact I'm strapped to
mom's chest and in the middle of a bookstore, his
terror-stricken face seemed to say. This dude is bad news.

The refrain seemed to frighten the baby even more, and Richard
Belzer gave up, handing him back to his mother. "Whip out the
breast, babe, because I don't want him crying when I read," he
snapped, and made his way to the podium surrounded by a deluge
of Homicide fans and conspiracy buffs, all assembled to hear the
actor-comedian riff off his book, UFOs, JFK, and Elvis:
Conspiracies You Don't Have To Be Crazy To Believe. According to
some, you do indeed have to be crazy to believe what Belzer
serves up; in the book, he unabashedly worships at the altar of
Jim Marrs, a Texas journalist whose book on the Kennedy
assassination, Crossfire, is regarded by many serious
researchers with skepticism, and whose recent offering, Alien
Agenda, is, well, out there. And the format of Belzer's book�
short chapters, lots of sidebars and boxes, no footnotes�
doesn't exactly buttress the jacket's claim that "the truth is
in here."

But, as Belzer explains, the book is better read as provocation,
not as Revealed Truth. "What I really want to do is goose
people's imaginations," he says. "It's clear I believe there was
a conspiracy involved in the murder of the president, but I make
clear what I believe and what is theory. This is stuff I've
wanted to get off my chest and brain for a long time."

Blend the personification of "just because you ain't paranoid
don't mean they ain't out to get you" with the sensibilities of
a latter-day chautauquan gone cynical and you have Belzer in a
nutshell. He rues the stratified oligarchy that he sees being
constructed on the somniferous ruins of democracy. Like the
Homicide character Detective John Munch, he believes that if
people have an opportunity to take advantage of others, they
will. Given this view of human nature, the word "conspiracy" has
no stigma for Belzer; as he points out, its Latin root simply
means "to breathe together," and, to him, conspiracies are as
natural as breathing. If a conspiracy led by a drunk,
out-of-work actor could kill a president over 100 years ago, he
asks, is it so ridiculous to believe more sophisticated people
in power can't execute any number of nefarious plots? Is it so
absurd to entertain notions that involve ulterior motives and
hidden agendas?

"One of my purposes is, I want to convert people to looking at
things in a different way� there's a lot out there that's not
blaring across the front page, but people can find out for
themselves," he says. "There's more going on than we ever
suspected. I mean, look at all the tourists who come to
Washington. It seems that Washington is really beautiful. But
what it really is is a beautifully wrapped package with maggots
and shit inside." Which was part of the reason, he says, that he
reveled in the Homicide�Law & Order crossover episodes set in
Washington last season in which the shows' characters found
themselves overwhelmed by a maze of lies and abuses of power. "I
loved those episodes because they showed what people with power
can do and how people and information can be manipulated."

This theme is one that has held Belzer's interest most of his
adult life; working in Connecticut as a reporter at his hometown
Bridgeport Post in the late '60s, he keenly recalls his latent
anti-authoritarian notions being stoked by a sense of revulsion
at what he saw covering courts and cops. "Hearing these people
talk, I was like, these aren't the pristine authority figures I
had grown up believing to be always right� I didn't realize how
sinister and cavalier people in power are until I really got to
be around them," he says. "I remember hearing the police
commissioner talking about people in this kind of patronizing� I
don't want to say racist [way], but let's say he showed contempt
for certain kinds of people� and this really, really disturbed
me."

Leaving Connecticut journalism to move to New York, Belzer was
further radicalized by alternative media. Ever the voracious
reader, he still dives into books and devours at least five
newspapers a day. He used to think of himself as a stand-up
journalist, and to some extent, it's still the best description
for what Belzer does best. As Belzer continually emerged like a
town crier from his trailer on the set of Homicide after hours
of news and conspiracy research, the show's writers began to
integrate his political rants into scripts, which fit nicely
with his Detective Munch character. A '60s-era pothead
alternative journalist who, because of a love for the slick TV
detective shows of his youth, ends up using his bullshit
detection skills in the service of The Man, who he clearly
doesn't trust. Indeed, Munch may be the only TV cop who isn't
down with the War on Drugs because he knows the conspiratorial
history of marijuana criminalization. "It was true, so [NBC]
really couldn't censor it," he says. "And I liked it because it
showed there are people who work for the state who aren't happy
with the state."

That said, though, discerning readers might wonder if Belzer, in
his zeal to inspire political vigilance, has let his ardor trump
his intellect. According to a veteran conspiracy researcher and
fan of Belzer's, by relying on the work of Jim Marrs� who, among
other things, asserts that the moon moves not in an ellipse but
in an almost precise circular orbit, and thus was placed off
earth by aliens� Belzer does his intellectual reputation a
disservice. "He's so much smarter than that!" says the
researcher. But Belzer's not fazed. "Friends of mine say,
'You're crazy' or 'You're making that up,' and I just say I'm a
messenger. That's why I include a bibiliography. I just want
people to look deeper."

Take Rudy Giuliani's New York, he says. "It seems like all the
homeless people are literally disappearing. I had a cabbie tell
me last year, 'It's great, but where are they?' Curious how the
undesirable people disappear as things start gentrifying, isn't
it?" It may be a phenomenon Detective Munch can investigate this
fall; despite Homicide's cancellation, it looks like Belzer will
return as the conspiracy-spouting investigator on the new Law &
Order spinoff. Though it's hard to picture a cop who sounds like
Richard Belzer lasting long on Howard Safir's NYPD if he voices
anything like what Belzer believes: "I think you can have a
clean, civil city without being so heavy-handed and
mean-spirited."


Tell us what you think.

editor@villagevoice.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                  U.S. Military Designation System [AN\---]

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:54:36
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:58:39 -0400
Subject: U.S. Military Designation System [AN\---]


Forwarded from 'alt.alien.visitors'.

Stig

***

From: twitchb@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research
Subject: U.S. Military designation System (AN\---)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:53:36 GMT



Anyone doing any reading or investigating into military systems
has probably come across the mil-std-96 classification system.
(Also known as the AN/ designation system.)

Most military systems are known by one of two classifications
systems, the first is the Mark/Mod system, which I will ignore.
The other is a designation which allows you to understand the
purpose of the military equipment which it designates. And
example is the AN/SQS-26. Someone who knows this designation
system will quickly figure out that it is a surface ship sonar
system used primarily for the search function.

Or the AN/PRC-9. The prick 9 is clearly a portable radio
communications system.

Many UFO reports or other reports refer to military systems.
Most of these are designated by the AN/ designation system. You
can figure out a certain amount of the capability of the system
if you know how the AN/ designations work.

The order of the letters is important. The same letter in a
different position may mean something different. (e.g., SQS-26.
The first S means Water. (Or really normally shipboard). The
second letter Q means sonar or underwater sound. The third
letter, S, means detecting and/or range and bearing, search.)

The use will quickly become obvious to most of you. If some one
claims to have picked up and tracked a UFO on a SPS-21, you will
have every reason to question him. This is a search radar and
most likely can't track a target. If he claims to have detected
a UFO on a SPG-53, don't trust this person, this is a tracking
radar and cannot be used to search.

Some of these are simple and some not so simple but all are
intended to assist. I used Mil-Std-96C to generate this list, so
some topics have been removed and some are probably not here
because it is quite old. For instance the letter B in the second
place is not listed. This used to stand for carrier pigeon.

Thus an AN/BBB-1 would be an underwater pigeon bomber. (Needless
to say, not all combinations have merit!)

Try to figure out what a UYK-43 is!

If you want to keep this list, please print it out.

Installation (1st letter)

A - piloted aircraft

B - Underwater mobile, submarine

D - Pilotless carrier

F - Fixed ground

G - General ground use

K - Amphibious

M - Ground mobile

P - Portable

S - Water

T - Ground, transportable

U - General utility

V - Ground vehicular

W - Water surface and underwater combination

Z - Piloted and pilotless airborne vehicle combination


Type of Equipment (2nd letter)

A - Invisible light, heat radiation

C - Carrier

D - Radiac

G - Telegraph or teletype

I - Interphone and public address

J - Electromechanical

K - Telemetering

L - Countermeasures

M - Meteorological

N - Sound in air

P - Radar

Q - Sonar and underwater sound

R - Radio

S - Special types

T - telephone (wire)

V - Visual and visible light

W - Armament

X - Facsimile or television

Y - data processing

Purpose (3rd letter)

B - Bombing

C - Communications (receiving and transmitting)

D - Direction finder reconnaissance and/or Surveillance

E - Ejection and/or release

G - Fire control, or searchlight directing

H - Recording and/or reproducing (graphic meteorological and
sound)

K - computing

M - Maintenance and/or test assemblies (including tools)

N - Navigational aids (including altimeters, beacons, compasses,
racons, depth, sounding, approach, and landing)

Q - Special or combination of purposes

R - Receiving, passive detecting

S - Detecting and/or range and bearing, search

T - Transmitting

W - Automatic flight or remote control

X - Identification and response

Misc. Identification letters following letter # 3

X,Y,Z - changes in voltage, phase, or frequency

T - training

(V) - Variable grouping

Hope this helps.

Obviously, some older pieces of equipment (e.g., SCR-584) aren't
under this system.

It may be that the race is not always to the swift nor the
battle to the strong - but that is the way to bet.


Damon Runyon







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                      The Stonedisks of Baian-Kara-Ula

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:45:48
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:55:45 -0400
Subject: The Stonedisks of Baian-Kara-Ula

:
:

Source: In Search Of,

http://www.in-search-of.com/frames/stonedisk/stonedisk_nf.shtml

Excerpt below.

Stig

***

Good afternoon.

It is Tuesday, June 15, 1999 at 3:29 PM


The Stonedisks of Baian-Kara-Ula


Disclaimer:

This report is based on the work written by Mr. J. Dendl and Mr. H.
Hausdorf of the Ancient Astronaut Society. The information presented herein
has been thoroughly researched but does not claim to be complete or
accurate. All pictures are courtesy of Ancient Astronaut Society. Best
viewed with Netscape Navigator 3.0 or IE 3.0


Contents:

*1937: The discovery of the Stonedisks

*1947: Dr. Karyl Robin-Evans' expedition

*1968: W. Saitsew & Prof. Tsum Um Nui

*1995: Ethnological evidence?



1937: The discovery of the Stonedisks


During an expedition to the hardly accessible mountainrange of
Baian-Kara-Ula which lies on the borderland between Tibet and China, the
chinese archeologist Chi Pu Tei discovered several cave burial sites which
contained strange, only about 4 feet 4 inches tall skeletons, whose heads
were oversized in relation to their otherwise slender frame. In each of the
total of 716 graves he found a stonedisk with a diameter of about 1 foot
and a thickness of a third of an inch. These disks were engraved with
inscriptions of so far unkown origin. Chi Pu Tei published his findings
stating that the skeletons were those of montain gorillas and that the
disks were added by later cultures, which lead to him being ridiculed by
the chinese archeologist community.



1947: Dr. Karyl Robin-Evans' expedition


The report:

Shortly after World War II the polish professer Lolladoff showed a strange
stonedisk to the english scientist Dr. Karyl Robin-Evans. Lolladoff claims
to have bought the disk in Mussorie (Northern India) and that it is
supposed to be from a mysterious people called the "Dzopa" who had used it
for religious rituals.

<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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                   Re: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 04:08:09 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:37:23 -0400
Subject: Re: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90


>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:20:03 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: URGENT NEWSFLASH - Belgium 1989/90

>What is the point in my above reply?  Well, just because this
>Canadian pilot expressed his views, it doesn't mean they were
>correct or true or even reflected official Canadian government
>plans.

Hi Nick, Tim and others,

You are right that the comments by the Belgian F16 pilot were
not the official government line. By coincidence I got a request
from another researcher this week for info on the flap. He
informed me that the official conclusion of the Belgian Air
Force is still that they had encountered an unknown phenomenon.



            __________________________________________
           /    Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes    \
                      Henny van der Pluijm





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                   US Feds: No Implant In 'Mobster's' Butt

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:15:10
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:40:35 -0400
Subject: US Feds: No Implant In 'Mobster's' Butt



Source: AP via Yahoo News,

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/ap_us/story.html?s=v/ap/19990615/us/
bugged_3.html

Stig

***

Yahoo! News

AP Headlines

Tuesday June 15 5:52 PM ET

Feds: No Bug in 'Mobster's' Butt

**

WORCESTER, Mass. (AP) - There's no bug in a reputed mobster's
buttocks, the government says.

For years, Vincent "Gigi Portalla" Marino claims, a federal drug
agent had told him that a tracking device was inserted in
Marino's rear end when he underwent surgery to remove a bullet.

This week, a federal judge ordered authorities to say whether
they did, in fact, implant such a device.

"We can confirm that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
did not implant a tracking device in defendant Vincent M. `Gigi
Portalla' Marino's buttocks," U.S. Attorney Donald K. Stern said
in a statement. "But we cannot speak, however, for any
extraterrestrial beings."

Marino had claimed that he was once asked by a DEA agent to sign
a form so the government could remove the device from his body.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton said the
situation "sounds like some DEA agent trying to be funny," but
he granted Marino's request to force the government to tell him
the truth.

Gorton's order came during a hearing in preparation for a
racketeering trial scheduled to start in the fall. Marino and
six other defendants are accused of waging a murderous battle to
seize control of the New England Mafia. Marino is in prison
awaiting trial.

In 1996, Marino was caught in a hail of gunfire at a club in
Revere. He was shot in the buttocks.

A legal expert said it is highly unlikely the government could
legally implant a device in a person's body.

"Theoretically, if you wanted to put a tracking device in
someone's body you would have to have court authority to do
that, and I imagine the courts would be reluctant to do that,"
said Randy Chapman, former head of the Massachusetts Bar
Association's criminal justice division.


Copyright � 1999 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

The information contained in the AP News report may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the
prior written authority of The Associated Press.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                       Re: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:19:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:41:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting


>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:47:07 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>Mark Cashman, who I greatly respect, recently revealed in IUR that
>the 1965 (?) Beaver, Pennsylvania, photos were unalduterated
>fakes. Until that time, however, he had the photo(s) on his web
>page, subject to all sorts of luminosity analysis and other
>"corroborative" evidence. The only problem, in the end, was that
>the original account didn't match up with the phenomenon. In
>fact, there was no phenomenon.

Dennis, please - I appreciate the respect, but your
mischaracterization of the content of my web pages is hardly
appropriate.

The material on the page which referred to the Beaver photos
simply *described* the features of the photos next to close ups
of the described sections of the images. There is a section of
my site which discusses luminosity. In its prior form I pointed
out that the Beaver photo displayed a frequently reported UFO
feature - the ventral cone of luminosity. The same feature, BTW,
appears in the Spaur case. Since the discovery of the falsity of
the Beaver photos, references to them have been removed, as is
appropriate.

I did not do any sort of luminosity "analysis" of the photos,
except to indicate features which I thought were interesting and
potentially suggestive. That does not qualify as analysis in my
book. Nor did I offer any "corroborative" evidence in regard
to the photo - indeed, I have no idea to what you refer. The
only corroboration to the case comes from the witnesses as
mentioned in Fuller's book.

I had planned on doing some more detailed work that
mentioned Beaver, and it was in the course of attempting to
validate the case prior to the work that I obtained the
admission of the hoax.

So please, calm down and check your facts more carefully
before making patently untrue claims about someone's handling
or presentation of a case.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                John Mack, M.D. Joins The Prophets Conference

From: prophets@maui.net
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:09:13 -1000
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:46:25 -0400
Subject: John Mack, M.D. Joins The Prophets Conference



JOHN MACK,MD joins THE PROPHETS CONFERENCE ~ PORT TOWNSEND, WA,
August 27-29

Dr. John Mack tells The Prophets Conference �a story of one
man�s determination to bear witness to cosmic mysteries with
extraordinary implications for the human future��

An esteemed professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School,
and a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, Dr. John Mack never
intended to become an expert in the controversial study of alien
abductees. But after investigating over 60 cases of alien
abduction through hundreds of hours of interviews and treatment,
Dr. Mack now presents the mesmerizing tales of alien encounters
revealed by his patients-- none of whom are mentally ill-- and
the profound, surprising and at times deeply spiritual impact
these experiences have had on their lives. Providing details of
alien encounters never before reported or depicted on the
screen, the men and women whose experiences are related here in
unforgettably vivid detail are not extremists recounting dreams
or hallucinations. Rather, as Dr. Mack reports, they are
survivors of harrowing, real-life experiences that challenge the
most basic assumptions that make up our understanding of our
existence and our role in the universe.

He has written the gripping and fascinating book Abduction:
Human Encounters with Aliens, in which the accounts of
self-reported abductees led Dr. Mack to make other
connections--between abductions, near-death experiences and
'past-life regressions.' All of these experiences are, Dr. Mack
suggests, vehicles for recovering perennial wisdom.  He places
emphasis on spiritual transformation as the nexus of the
abduction experience, even likening it to a shamanic expansion
of consciousness.

Dr. Mack won the 1977 Pulitzer Prize for �A Prince of Our
Disorder.�  His new book, �Passport to the Cosmos,� will be
available later this summer.
______________________________________________ During The
Prophets Conference Port Townsend, Dr. John Mack will join the
powerful panel �The UFO: Anomaly, Reality, Implications� along
with panelists Joe Firmage, Dr. Robert Anton Wilson, Dr. Edgar
Mitchell and Dr. Steven Greer.  He will also be presenting an
individual workshop.
______________________________________________ The 21st Century
Mind: Opening to the Possible is the vision for The Prophets
Conference ~ Port Townsend. This special gathering continues the
compelling adventure into sacred vision and the realization of
meaning. The Prophets Conferences are unparalleled events
constantly manifesting the edge of ideas which call for nothing
less than the Re-envisioning and Reconfiguration of Reality.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                             Physics Of UFO Data

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:07:31
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:17:44 -0400
Subject: Physics Of UFO Data


Forwarded from 'alt.paranet.ufo'.

Stig

***

From: labanti@iol.it (Roberto Labanti)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic
Subject: Physics of UFO data
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:49:12 GMT


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

Physics from UFO Data

Article by Massimo Teodorani, Ph.D. - Astronomer


Abstract

A research project on the UFO phenomenon is proposed in which
UFO targets are treated on a par with astronomical objects
having no fixed coordinates. Specifically oriented monitoring
techniques and strategies involving small telescopes which are
connected to CCD detectors, spectrographs and photon-counting
photometers are presented. Expected exposure-times for acquiring
a good S/N ratio of the target using all the proposed
instruments is also evaluated. Finally, physical informations
which are expected to come out from data analysis are presented
and discussed in detail.

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


The entire article is disponible at the URL

http://www.ufodatanet.org/report/ufophys_e.htm

Best regards,

Roberto Labanti






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:34:57 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:02:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:44:13 -0400
>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

>Do you reckon it's still an untenable (if unpalatable)
>possibility?

>James.
>E-mail: voyager@ukonline.co.uk

James, I believe that the bird hypothesis is untenable due to
the evidence presented in posts that would require large
reflective birds shaped like pie pans with a piece cut out. It
would be untenable even if the reflective birds had a supersonic
tailwind. Then again, perhaps this was the first sighting of Big
Bird and the rest of the family.

Perhaps, as the Sasquatch is claimed to be on the ground in that
part of the country, Sasbirds fly fast at a high altitude up
yonder. I think this once again has been an epic adventure ride
of getting down to the nitty-gritty of the Arnold Experience. I
know that I rode it while imagining I was flying his Callair.
I've been a pilot but I've never flown up there. I just take in
Arnold's words and I can't see (with his methodical reporting)
how he would ever come to the conclusion that what he saw was a
flight of birds. I'm willing to say it's an unsolved mystery in
an unsolved case, many decades after his experience and his
methodical reporting. I hope that we don't pick too many more
nits on this question unless we have new evidence. It's been a
fun ride but has it been answered? <g>I just go by what Arnold
said. It's good enough for me.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Perry Mick <perrym@teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:23:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:00:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:58:49 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Better ask a pilot how long it takes to turn 90 deg (perhaps
>abot 20 seconds?). Would he be able to (a) use a cowling tool
>for size estimate, (b) turn his plane, (c) roll down the window
>in about 2 minutes time? I bet he would be able to. Pilot's out
>there want to comment? How much bank angle could Arnold safely
>get for a reasonably rapid but not panic turn?

I'm a pilot.  A standard instrument in small planes is the turn
and bank indicator or turn coordinator.  These are calibrated
for what is called a standard rate turn, or a 2-minute turn. The
bank angle for this rate of turn is usually much less than 30
degrees, but depends on airspeed.  It shows the bank angle you
have to hold to turn 360 degrees in 2 minutes.  It is also the
rate of turn one should use in flying the pattern to takeoff and
land.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:03:35 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:11:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:44:13 -0400
>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Off the list, Bruce has helpfully clarified some details which
>have explained the full context of Arnold's letter to the Air
>Force.

>Confirmed is my contention that Arnold was in fact still
>searching for the missing C-46 marine transporter when his
>sighting occurred.

>It did not take place afterwards, when Arnold was en route to
>Yakima.

>I'm sure we can now conclude the debatable points as much as
>they ever can be.

<snip>

Hi James,

At 60 MPH The Callair would have been about ready to fall out of
the sky. Certainly if he had turned, upping his wing-stall speed
he would have entered an incipient spin, then a full spin. The
Call air cruised at about 100-120 MPH and with its short wing
span had a higher stall speed than say a J-3 Cub, Aeronca or
Taylorcraft [the latter, a high wing was the plane they used to
represent Arnold's plane in the movie UFO. Real attention to
detail there]. As search planes go, the Callair was a poor
choice. His wings would have covered hundreds of square miles
below him.

Having been [and still am] a volunteer search and rescue  pilot,
I can atest to just how hard it is to spot a downed aircraft at
high altitudes [or low for that matter. Usually you find them
due to other clues such as tree tops being clipped off, a swath
being cut into low brush or the trees, or the plane's own
reflectivity. In Arnold's case he was likely looking for an
aircraft that could have been at a varity of altitudes and which
likely buried itself in the snow or was covered over by same. We
search with four aboard [pilot, navigator and two spotters in
the back seat] using high wing aircraft [C-172s, 182s or 180s,
etc. all of which have 36 foot wing spans] at 700-1000 feet with
flaps on, cruising at about 90 miles per hour to prevent a wing
stall during turns. Even then they are shallow turns. Arnold's
Callair had a wing span of about 26 feet and no flaps and were
low as I mentioned before. I doubt if he was flying at a speed
of any less than 90 MPH or perhaps even 100. It would make no
difference at the altitude he was searching. This would have had
him looking ahead of the left wing and down with the occassional
glance behind his wing in case reflectivity might have indicated
the crash site due the angle change.

I don't know if any of this helps put your head in Arnold's
Callair James. It's just like anything else though, there are
many misconceptions about piloting an airplane, more than a few
of which I have mentioned during this thread. You mentioned that
your friend sped away from the peligans at 80 MPH. If that was a
pure sail plane the only way he could have done that was by
diving away from them to gain speed, unless it was a
motor-glider. It doesn't say.

Your glider friend also mentions visibility factors, such as
haze. All true, but Arnold is on record as saying it was a
beautiful day for flying with the air very stable and clear.
I've been up on days like that and it is a joy to behold. You
can see 75 miles-plus once you get up to a mile or so. Whenever
you get air that clear, it's because its very stable and cold
with no convection currents to whip dust, smoke and other
pollutants into the upper atmosphere. Despite this being the air
age, the general publics knowledge about flying is very poor
with many misconceptions fostered by the entertainment industry.

Hope this helps.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:42:04 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:17:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:44:13 -0400
>Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:23:10 -0400
>Subject: Re: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

>Off the list, Bruce has helpfully clarified some details which
>have explained the full context of Arnold's letter to the AirForce.
>Confirmed is my contention that Arnold was in fact still
>searching for the missing C-46 marine transporter when his
>sighting occurred.It did not take place afterwards, when Arnold
>was en route toYakima.I'm sure we can now conclude the
>debatable points as much asthey ever can be.

>Bruce,

>In his report for the Air Force, Arnold wrote, in full:
>"I had made one sweep of this high plateau to the westward,
>searching all of the various ridges for this marine ship and
>lew to the west down and near the ridge side of the canyon
>where Ashford, Washington, is located.
>Unable to see anything that looked like the lost ship, I made a
>360 degree turn to the right and above the little city of
>Mineral, starting again toward Rainer. I climbed back up to an
>altitude of about 9,200 ft.

<snip>

>James.


James & List,

Much has been said and written about Arnold's sighting(s) during
the years.

In order to (try to) solve the mystery once and for all -
hopefully during this year (!!) - we can, for instance, also
take a look at what happend on the ground, that is, provide some
info. from the Web on the crash of the Curtiss C-45

http://www.airartnw.com/flyingthehump.htm
http://www.robins.af.mil/museum/aircraft/c-46.htm

marine transport plane, along with some  other interesting
Arnold

http://www.nwmyst.com/images/nwmyst-ufo-0022-2.jpg

stuff from the Web.

The following URLs are referred to in this respect:

http://www.nps.gov/mora/PressRel/PRplanecrash.htm , with the
following excerpts:

"The plane was transporting servicemen from San Diego to Sand
Point Naval Air Station in Seattle."

"Park Ranger Bill Butler spent many off-duty hours monitoring
snow levels and climbing conditions. As the snow started to
melt, he began looking for evidence of the plane crash.

On July 21, 1947, Bill spotted a gleam of metal on the South
Tahoma Glacier, but he could not reach the site from his
position on the Success Cleaver. After the discovery was
reported, a search party made up of rangers and mountain guide
Dee Molenaar was formed. On July 24, Bill Butler and his party
reached the plane tail section at the 8,500' level of the
glacier. No bodies were found.

A month later enough snow had melted to expose the nose section.
Bill and his party later reached the crash site near the
glacier's 10,000' level. The bulk of the broken plane was wedged
into a crevasse. Bodies of the Marines were found, most encased
by ice. Evacuation would have been extremely dangerous. It was
decided, with the concurrence of families of the victims, that
the Marines would be left buried in the glacier."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9575/1946.htm

(There seems to be no info. on the marine plane here....)

http://www.geocities.com/~pjctsign/LagIV.htm

"I immediately changed my mind and decided that there was a
bunch of new jet planes in formation."

"They seem to kind of weave in and out right above the mountain
tops. And I would say, that they even went down into the canyons
in several instances�oh, probably a hundred feet."

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pauljones3/kenneth.htm

http://www.nwmyst.com/nwmyst-ufo-0022.html

"The objects had flown so fast, so strangely, but bore such
unforgettable aerodynamic details, that he kept trying to
convince himself that what he had seen was an advanced form of
jet (still in their infancy in 1947), or Russian guided
missiles."

"....the Cold War was being born; perhaps the objects were
foreign communist aerial invaders."

http://www.nwmyst.com/images/nwmyst-ufo-0022-3.jpg

This aircraft bears much resemblance to the Horten Ho 229, i.e.:
http://www.danford.net/horten.htm.

http://www.nwmyst.com/nwmyst-ufo-0023.html

http://www.nwmyst.com/images/nwmyst-ufo-0022-4.jpg

Some other questions which might be raised, are:


- The formation of craft were, according to Arnold, also close
to the ground. Were they searching for something? Maybe the
crashed C-46? Were they part of the Navy's search team? With new
technology to search for metallic materials on the ground?
(Alternatively, for others: The $5, 000 reward was no small sum
of money in those days.)

- Or, could the planes have paid some interest to the volcanoes,
and  to the volcanic activity in this area? (Check out:
http://www.nps.gov/mora/MORA_Photos/summit.jpg ) (Many UFOs are
seen close to volcanoes.)

- One of the planes were different from the others. Not much
attention has been paid to this

- Could the Americans have 9 of these planes in 1947? Or, maybe
the Russians were in possession of the blueprints/construction
drawings, and one of the Horten brothers? And, did they really
manage to fly these newly developed and constructed planes from
Soviet to America in July 1947?


The planes were aerodynamically unstable, and most likely
difficult to fly in formation - due to the missing tail. Today,
these types of planes, like the B-2s

http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_2_Spirit.html

are fitted with pressure sensors and the stability is controlled
by computers.

Because I cannot suggest any answers to these questions right
now, the readers of  the List must make up their own conclusions
about this, and maybe provide their results on the List.



Best regards,
Asgeir







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                              Re: Possibilities

From: Stephen Bassett <SGBList2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:08:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:20:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Possibilities


>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:25:14 -0700
>From: Judith Dale <judithdale@earthlink.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Possibilities

>I've been reading all UFO UpDate posts as they hit my email.
>Except in a very few instances, I see the same old nitpicking go
>on and on. I came across these quotes recently:

>"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical
>science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly
>established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted
>in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.. Our
>future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
>                           - physicist Albert. A. Michelson, 1894

>and:

>"..so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that
>anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value."
>                      - committee advising Ferdinand and Isabella
>                         regarding Columbus' proposal, 1486

>Just thought I'd pass them along, perhaps as a reminder that; 1)
>we don't know everything, and 2) Let's not allow our eyes to be
>blinded by what we think we know exists, or is possible.

>Whilst some nitpick, the barn still burns and the sightings continue.

>My thanks to all who persist in their research to discover the
>truth, present their findings, and don't just spin their wheels
>debating for the sake of debate.


Judith,

So very nicely stated.  Science, like politics, is only just
emerging from thousands of years of male dominance and all that
accompanied it - the arrogance of certainty, abuses of  power,
territoriality, win-lose, zero sum, greed, pride, envy, secrecy,
and above all, control.

The 50-year study of UFO/ET phenomena, coming as it has in the
middle of a profound transition away from male dominance shows
both signs of the old as well as the new.  The influence of
women and their collective world view on both science and
politics is mitigating against the toxic downside of the old
order now passing into history.

We not only don't know everything, we don't even know the
outlines of what we don't know.

As to the larger picture to which you allude: the UFO/ET
research and activist community will either come together in a
more focused coalition, circumscribed by comity, tolerance,
cooperation and mutual support, or, all its efforts and
contributions will be swept away by the state as the government
moves to assert its privileges and control in a post-disclosure,
post-paradigm world.

The greatest event in human history will become just another
spun agenda of our military-industrial complex, the world's
citizens just spectators to be entertained with post-paradigm
propaganda, the UFO/ET researchers and activists just buzzing
flies about the head of an awakened beast to be brushed aside or
expunged.

There will be no true citizen-government partnership regarding
the extraterrestrial presence until we exert collective action
in our common interests.

Be assured that agent provocateurs are able and ready to prevent
such a coalition from forming and ensure that all policies, laws
and acts regarding extraterrestrials are influenced only by
unelected careerists inside the stone block buildings along the
Potomac River.

Regards,

Stephen Bassett





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:50:36 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:23:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO Updates
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:45:43 +0100

>Thanks for all the messages that flooded in over the weekend. To
>be honest I had not even noticed that UFO UpDates was on the cc
>list of the original Robert Moore and I thought I was only
>talking to a few UK UFOlogists. I was quite surprised to see my
>'spoof' went global. But no matter, it was an interesting
>exercise.

>Let me qualify 'spoof'. This was not really trickery. Rather it
>was a deliberate exercise in taking an idea to its natural
>extreme. Many people in the UK have been furious over the Max
>Burns lecture saying BUFORA lost the plot by inviting him. THere
>were demands for mass walk outs over the issue.
>Snipped

Boy, did you put one over on us.  Whew! We _all_ thought you
were serious. What a bunch of maroons we are!

However, I do understand how this can happen. On more than one
occasion, I have attempted, thru hummers, uh, thru HUMOR, to
yell at somebody or other for saying something which I
originally thought was out of line while in reality, I was out
of line all along.

Just one last question, and I do not expect you to answer it as
I am without portfolio, have not published anything (on UFOs)
and am not a recognized researcher... nor am I an unrecognized
researcher.  Having said all that, I expect nothing from anyone,
except either a chuckle, or a chuckle and some personal
recognition that the offendee, not the offender (that'd be me)
got the message. So my question is, based on your more recent
admission that you were merely joshing, my question is, Dear Ms.
Offendee, what is the temperature of the sand?

Jim Gesundt & Jaime Mortellaro, UFO Research without portfolio
but a lot of Moxie... we mix it with our Gripple and rhubarb
wine.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                           Re: Irwin Weider Query

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:19:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:24:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Irwin Weider Query


Hi,

Does anyone know where I can contact Irwin Weider, the guy who
replicated the Williamette Pass photo and proved it was a hoax.

Any ideas gratefully accepted.

Happy Trails

Andy






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

              Re: Budd Hopkins [was: Mad Maxad Max: Beyond the

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 99 14:50:04 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:27:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins [was: Mad Maxad Max: Beyond the


>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:19:53 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

>>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:52:07 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

>>>From: Rose Hargrove <PRIESTESSE@aol.com>
>>>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:19:22 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net


Hi, John,

>No, I'm not here to "defend" Budd. I am here as a witness.
>"Above and beyond hypnosis" (which doesn't happen in every case
>contrary to popular belief) Budd makes calls, interviews
>witnesses, does 'on site' inspections, and he even interviews
>neighbors with the permission of the person reporting if it is
>called for. I know he has spoken to police and to government
>agencies while 'checking things out.' As witness, I can attest
>to the fact that Budd is a lot more thorough than many,
>(yourself included) ever give him credit for. So Dennis,

>you're dead wrong about Budd. He may not be the best of
>"investigators," (and I agree that hypnosis is being -way-
>overused) but, he's an intelligent and thoughtful man who goes
>about his business in an intelligent and thoughtful manner.


>I speak from having worked in close quarters with Budd for 6
>years, Dennis. If you knew the man the way that I know him, you'd
>never say an unkind word about him. No BS.

Excellent points, my friend.  Budd Hopkins is as decent a guy as
they come, with more compassion in his little fingernail than
most of us (including most of us ufologists) possess in all our
bodies. He and I don't agree on everything, but I always listen
with great respect and interest to what he has to say, because
Budd is worth listening to, which is more than I can say for
some of his critics.

It sickens me to see how often Budd's good name is trashed, on
this list and elsewhere, by persons who barely know him, or who
don't know him at all.  The implicit assumption beyond the slurs
seems to be that anybody making radical claims must be a bad
human being. It's not enough, one gathers, simply to argue, as
civilized discourse would have it, that the man's ideas are
misguided. Greg Sandow has tried to insert notes of sanity,
accuracy, and proportion into the discussion from time to time,
to no apparent effect.  And while I'm listing Budd's virtues,
let me add one more: courage.

Jerry Clark






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                 Re: US Feds: No Implant In 'Mobster's' Butt

From: Jsmortell@aol.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:51:15 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:08:02 -0400
Subject: Re: US Feds: No Implant In 'Mobster's' Butt


>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:15:10
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>Subject: US Feds: No Implant In 'Mobster's' Butt

>Source: AP via Yahoo News,

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/ap_us/story.html?s=v/ap/19990615/us/
>bugged_3.html

>Stig

>***

>Yahoo! News

>AP Headlines

>Tuesday June 15 5:52 PM ET

>Feds: No Bug in 'Mobster's' Butt

>**

>WORCESTER, Mass. (AP) - There's no bug in a reputed mobster's
>buttocks, the government says.

>For years, Vincent "Gigi Portalla" Marino claims, a federal drug
>agent had told him that a tracking device was inserted in
>Marino's rear end when he underwent surgery to remove a bullet.

>This week, a federal judge ordered authorities to say whether
>they did, in fact, implant such a device.

>"We can confirm that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
>did not implant a tracking device in defendant Vincent M. `Gigi
>Portalla' Marino's buttocks," U.S. Attorney Donald K. Stern said
>in a statement. "But we cannot speak, however, for any
>extraterrestrial beings."

<snip>

Dear Stig, Listfolk, Witness Protection Program and Aliens
Lurking;

WRONG!

If an alien wanted to implant a tracking device in the butt of a
Made Member's member or for that matter, any portion of the
member's anatomy, that alien will do so.  I can hear them tuning
up their debunking tools now.  Cup your hand to your ears.  Hear
it?

You want proof?  OK, you got proof.  Right here on my butt!  I,
who shall remain nameless because I AM in the witness prtoection
program, have an alien tracking device in my butt.  Howevever I
will not have it checked, removed or otherwise fiddled with by
any but Pia Zadora.  So, alls you gotta do to prove me wrong is
contact that lady and have her examine my ... uh, bottom.  It
must be done _just right_  however.  I've been waiting for this
moment for years.

Dr. Jaime Ges.... I mean, Jamey "The Doc" Gambini
Witness Protection Program
Canal Street Division
c/o Gesundt's Freshly Made Members






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:55:33 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:20:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins [was: Mad Maxad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome]
>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 99 14:50:04 PDT

>>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:19:53 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>Hi, John,

>>No, I'm not here to "defend" Budd. I am here as a witness.
>>"Above and beyond hypnosis" (which doesn't happen in every case
>>contrary to popular belief) Budd makes calls, interviews
>>witnesses, does 'on site' inspections, and he even interviews
>>neighbors with the permission of the person reporting if it is
>>called for. I know he has spoken to police and to government
>>agencies while 'checking things out.' As witness, I can attest
>>to the fact that Budd is a lot more thorough than many,
>>(yourself included) ever give him credit for. So Dennis,

<snip>

>Excellent points, my friend.  Budd Hopkins is as decent a guy as
>they come, with more compassion in his little fingernail than
>most of us (including most of us ufologists) possess in all our
>bodies. He and I don't agree on everything, but I always listen
>with great respect and interest to what he has to say, because
>Budd is worth listening to, which is more than I can say for
>some of his critics.

>It sickens me to see how often Budd's good name is trashed, on
>this list and elsewhere, by persons who barely know him, or who
>don't know him at all.  The implicit assumption beyond the slurs
>seems to be that anybody making radical claims must be a bad
>human being. It's not enough, one gathers, simply to argue, as
>civilized discourse would have it, that the man's ideas are
>misguided. Greg Sandow has tried to insert notes of sanity,
>accuracy, and proportion into the discussion from time to time,
>to no apparent effect.  And while I'm listing Budd's virtues,
>let me add one more: courage.


You forgot one Jerry, Dignity.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:14:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:36:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting


>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting
>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:19:11 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

>So please, calm down and check your facts more carefully
>before making patently untrue claims about someone's handling
>or presentation of a case.

>------
>Mark Cashman

Mark,

My comments were indeed based on my (admittedly fallible) memory
of visiting your site. If I erred, I apologize. Point was, the
Beaver pictures were posted as _possibly_ corroborative of your
overall luminosity analysis of various UFOs in general.

I credited you for laying the hoax to rest, once and for all.
(Without raising the question of whether it should have ever
been on your web page in the first place, given that Hartmann,
in the 1969 Condon Report, had already cast serious doubts as to
its validity. See p. 457 for an illustration of how it was
done.)

If you want to discuss specifics, please e-mail me copies of
your deleted pages pertaining to the Beaver pictures and I'll
comment further. I'm sure you kept a file copy somewhere. Or
maybe I did.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:14:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:31:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:19:53 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

<snip>

>If you're going to critique Budd's (or anybody elses) "methods"
>it would be nice if you familiarize yourself with them first.
>Fair is fair Dennis. Never say stuff -about anyone- that you
>cannot prove.

>Peace,

>John Velez

John, you have to much to say that is good regarding people,
whereas I often don't. Am I getting cynical in middle age?

Actually, I had an article lined up by Budd for inclusion in
UFOs 1947-1997: Fifty Years of Flying Saucers. Some of you may
have seen it, most of you haven't. It was called "Sane Citizen
Sees UFO" and originally appeared in The Village Voce for March
1, 1976. It was a classic example of an investigation of a
single case, that of George O'Barski, who ran a liquor store in
Chelsea where Budd routinely bought his dinner wine.

I particularly wanted to use it because it was a damn good case,
and I thought it would somewhat recast the public perception of
Hopkins B.A. -- Before Abductions. Off the top of my head, I
can't remember why it didn't make the final edit, but if memory
serves (and often it doesn't in my case), I think the Village
Voice was late in granting reprint rights, which they eventually
did.

In any event, it demonstrates that, prior to researching
abduction cases in the main, Budd was an excellent foot soldier
when it came to investigating UFO cases per se.

To the best of my knowledge, however, Budd declined to
participate in the MUFON Abduction Transcription project, for
reasons only he can fully delineate. In a somewhat similar vein,
I've not heard much of late about the attempt to have his
collected alien writing samples analyzed by outside parties. In
the meantime, Mario Pazzaglini, who might have made a
significant contribution to same, unfortunately passed away in
November of last year.

This is Budd's material and he is of course perfectly free to do
what he wants with it, even if that extends to withholding it
from the scientific and ufological community (until the next
popular book is published), while continuing to publish
broadsides against Carl Sagan and NOVA for not treating the
abduction phenomenon seriously and scientifically.

The question remains: is Budd himself scientific or not? That
is, is his approach to the abduction phenomenon that of a
scientist or that of a concerned human and therapist, or
something of both? Does he keep anything even remotely
resembling statistics from his own investigations? (Not much,
according to Sandow himself.) Does he routinely publish his
findings for other researchers to peer review, comment upon, and
(god forbid the possibility!) criticize? A quick glance through
recent issues of the MUFON Journal, IUR, and JUFOS doesn't turn
up too many case investigations with his name on them.

An article in the Intruders Foundation newsletter remarked on
the fact that the aliens never expressed interest in the human
heart; until I pointed out that one of the Allagash abductees
drew a picture of aliens opening a human chest cavity and
hauling out the heart. (See the cover of the April, 1993, MUFON
UFO Journal for same, or Fowler's book on the case.)

I've met Budd on several occasions, and like nearly everyone
else, found him an imminently likeable guy. By most accounts
I've read, so was Sagan.

If likeability were the issue, there wouldn't be any issue. But
it isn't.

Budd is heading down a long, dark tunnel with no headlights on.
It may not happen tomorrow, it may not happen the day after
tomorrow, but it will happen. Sooner or later, one of his
"patients" (or their families) is going to file a serious
lawsuit against Hopkins over his use of hypnosis and there will
be all sorts of hell to pay. One of his friends ought to take
him aside and warn him of its inevitability.

Contrary to what you (and others) might think, I wouldn't like
to see it happen to such a nice guy. But Budd is playing with
fire. Not necessarily Boylan fire, but fire, nonetheless.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:35:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:57:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins [was: Mad Maxad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome]
>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 99 14:50:04 PDT

<snip>

>It's not enough, one gathers, simply to argue, as
>civilized discourse would have it, that the man's
>[Budd Hopkins's] ideas are misguided.

<snip>

>Jerry Clark


OK, let's argue that, and just that alone. The man's ideas are
misguided. Now, you'll want to know why. You can start with his
indefensible support of the Roper Report numbers. Or, if you
choose, you can support the Roper Report numbers yourself, thus
explaining why Budd's ideas _aren't_ misguided.

So, let's ask this: do you support the Roper Report numbers as
anywhere near an accurate reflection of the number of Americans
abducted by ET UFOs annually? If not, does this indicate that
Hopkins is simply _misguided_ (or something else) in this
particular area?

Note that both questions can be answered by a simple Yes or No.

Let's go no further for now: Is Hopkins misguided in his touting
of the Roper Report numbers or not?

If you think he _is_ misguided in terms of the Roper Report
numbers, would you please explain why, knowing Budd as well as
you do? And if he's misguided in this particular regard, is it
conceivable that he's misguided in other areas, as well, and
possibly irresponsible in one or two?

Or is that something none of us should consider -- because,
after all, Budd really is a nice guy and I'm not?

I think all of ufology is justified in saying that Sagan was
deified by skeptics and scientists alike. My problem is that I
see Hopkins being treated in the same fashion by believers and
ufologists. But Hopkins is only as good as his evidence, and
there is absolutely nothing in his evidence (or Jacobs's or
Mack's) to support the Roper Report numbers, nothing, absolutely
nothing, and it is irresponsible in the extreme of Hopkins to
continue to claim, suggest, or declare otherwise to the American
public.

I'm glad that Jerry has confessed to his past sins and errors,
i.e., his book supporting a paranormal, psycho-social
explanation of the UFO phenomenon. If everyone on this thread is
lucky, maybe I'll confess to a few sins of my own. But not until
Budd Hopkins does.

On the other hand, maybe Budd's never wrong about anything.
Maybe 3.7 million Americans _were_ abducted last year. And the
year before that, and so on. But, somehow, I don't think so.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 99 20:17:40 PDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:53:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:35:25 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins [was: Mad Maxad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome]
>>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 99 14:50:04 PDT

>>It's not enough, one gathers, simply to argue, as
>>civilized discourse would have it, that the man's
>>[Budd Hopkins's] ideas are misguided.

>OK, let's argue that, and just that alone. The man's ideas are
>misguided. Now, you'll want to know why. You can start with his
>indefensible support of the Roper Report numbers. Or, if you
>choose, you can support the Roper Report numbers yourself, thus
>explaining why Budd's ideas _aren't_ misguided.

I think I've committed what some consider the ultimate heresy:
speaking well of Budd Hopkins.  Sorry, Dennis. You know my views
on the Roper poll.


Jerry Clark





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                    UFOs Around The World...A Lot Of Them

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:43:06 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:56:09 -0400
Subject: UFOs Around The World...A Lot Of Them



ATENTION, HOT NEWS, VERY IMPORTANT.


 NOTCIAS POPULARES Newspaper

Flying Saucer appeared in 10 coutries

A Spaceship size of a Football field would have landed in Brazil

Suprise in the skies of  the Americas. UFOs were seen in at
least 10 countries, including Brazil, during the afertnoon of
monday and dawn of tuesday.

One of the objects would have landed in Goias, Brazil's state.

There's several reports, all very similar, from residentes of
the cities of Chapado do Sul, in Mato Grosso and Chapado do
Cu, Gois.

The phenomenon would have been seen in Bolivia, Colmbia,
Argentina, Costa Rica, Panam, Mxico, Peru and Venezuela.

The main report came from Francisco Fetter, a tributary fiscal.
He was at work and around 06:00PM, he looked to the sky and saw
a strange thing.

The thing looked a cover pot. The size was about a football
field, had lights and became red before disappear. He saw the
UFO for 3 minutes.

Then he called to another office, far 80 km. There, when got the
call, Mozar Menezes sad that he was seing the object. "It was a
spectacular light, wonderfull", sad Francisco.

The housewife's Ema Helena Schilick children, sad that they saw
a strange object in the sky.

Eunice Claudia,17, and Ernane Emerson14, were at the bus stop
when the UFO appeared.

They sad that it was a round object, enormeous, and was very
slow.

Besides them, 4 tourists that were in the Parque Nacional das
Emas tell the same story.

"This thing is "burning'", sad the Revista UFO editor, A.J.
Gevaerd

"We received dozens of reports, spoke with some professionals
from others countries that assured that they saw the same
phenomenon in the Latin America".

Gevaerd are going to Chapado do Sul today - "I gonna interview
some witnesses. usually when it happens there's some abduction
case".

There's rumors also that  a aircraft took off from tha Anpolis
Air Force Base, in Gois, to check out, and some informations
about a land and a crash of something.

We are still getting informations.

THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI
Diretor Do Departamento de Publicao e Traduo Especializadas ( DEPTE -
EBE-ET / Brasilia-Brasil)
Director of the Publication Department and Specialized Translation
ICQ - 35119615
****** SE VOC NO  POLCIA NO USE ARMAS ************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 17

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:28:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:10:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:23:34 -0700
>From: Perry Mick <perrym@teleport.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:58:49 -0400
>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Better ask a pilot how long it takes to turn 90 deg (perhaps
>>abot 20 seconds?). Would he be able to (a) use a cowling tool
>>for size estimate, (b) turn his plane, (c) roll down the window
>>in about 2 minutes time? I bet he would be able to. Pilot's out
>>there want to comment? How much bank angle could Arnold safely
>>get for a reasonably rapid but not panic turn?

>I'm a pilot.  A standard instrument in small planes is the turn
>and bank indicator or turn coordinator.  These are calibrated
>for what is called a standard rate turn, or a 2-minute turn. The
>bank angle for this rate of turn is usually much less than 30
>degrees, but depends on airspeed.  It shows the bank angle you
>have to hold to turn 360 degrees in 2 minutes.  It is also the
>rate of turn one should use in flying the pattern to takeoff and
>land.


Thanks for the info.

I gather that 30 seconds for 90 degrees is a "standard turn
rate." Presumably Arnold could turn faster if he wanted to and
the was no interference from bad weather/wind.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:28:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:06:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:44:13 -0400
>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


>Off the list, Bruce has helpfully clarified some details which
>have explained the full context of Arnold's letter to the Air
>Force.

>Confirmed is my contention that Arnold was in fact still
>searching for the missing C-46 marine transporter when his
>sighting occurred.

Well, it would appear from his Air Force letter, quoted below
that he was at a lower unstated altitude while searching because
he mentions climbing to 9,200 ft (give or take 1,000 if air
pressure setting not correct....etc.).   He climbed to a higher
altitude an trimmed his plane out (adjusted control settings to
fly steadily at a constant altitude and speed.... pilots want to
comment?) and "settled down" to enjoy the view as he flew toward
Yakima.

This says to me his searching was over by the time the sighting
began.

>It did not take place afterwards, when Arnold was en route to
>Yakima.

>I'm sure we can now conclude the debatable points as much as
>they ever can be.


>Bruce,

>In his report for the Air Force, Arnold wrote, in full:

>"I had made one sweep of this high plateau to the westward,
>searching all of the various ridges for this marine ship and
>flew to the west down and near the ridge side of the canyon
>where Ashford, Washington, is located.

>Unable to see anything that looked like the lost ship, I made a
>360 degree turn to the right and above the little city of
>Mineral, starting again toward Rainer. I climbed back up to an
>altitude of about 9,200 ft.>

>The air was so smooth that day that it was a real pleasure
>flying and, as most pilots do, I trimmed out my airplane in the
>direction of Yakima, which was almost directly east of my
>position and simply sat in my plane observing the sky and
>terrain".


>Ashford is to the north-east of Mineral and if he made a "360
>degree turn to the right" and was "starting again toward
>Rainer", which is also north-east of Ashford, I'm not sure how
>he was also travelling in the direction of Yakima.

It would appear that Arnold, that bad boy(!) hasn't told us
_every_ second by second detail of exactly what directions,
speeds and altitudes he flew his plane near the end of his
search for the downed military transport.   Perhaps he thought
the Air Force would be bored to learn how many zigs and zags \
he m,ade and exactly which direction is aircraft was pointing at
a particular time.   He recaled making a turn over Mineral after
being over a ridge near Ashord...and so what? What counts is
what happened after he trimmed out his plane to head toward
Yakima.   At that point the flight path was not
complicated....easy to remember...and likely to be correct.

>The account in his later book is also different, making no
>mention of 'heading towards Yakima' and stating, "It was during
t>his search and **while making a turn of 180 degrees over
>Mineral**, Washington, at approximately 9200 feet altitude" when
>he first noticed a 'bright flash'>

>The direction he was actually travelling in relation to the
>objects is crucial and I would have to be dubious about his
>'perfect' sighting conditions, as outlined in the Air Force
>report.

As I said above, after all the maneuvering to carry out the
search he climbed in altitude and set the plane on a simple
straight course for Yakima.,...very likely to be correct!\

>That aside, whether Arnold was coming out of a 180/360 degree
>turn, or 'cruising' due east, he was still in 'search' mode, so
>what was his airspeed likely to have been?
Above 80 mph "Crash Speed."

>Would he be undertaking a search at close to maximum speed, in
>treacherous terrain, or would his airspeed be much less, giving
>him time to hopefully spot the missing aircraft and earn an
>instant ten thousand dollar fortune?

He would be traveling AT LEAST fast enough to avoid stall. Ity
is my recollection that stall speed is around 80 mph, although
for some lightweight craft it might go down to 60.   HOwever,
his aircraft was not that lightweight. I would bet his speed
toward Yakima was higher than the search speed, probably over
100 mph.

>Some further comments re the respective figures you had quoted:

>Altitude: As you may have noticed, I mentioned to Don Ledger
>that I had seen a reference to pelicans being known to migrate
>at over 14,000 feet, considerably higher than your estimate
>(although it maybe makes no difference).

I have analyzed the bird situation assuming the they were at the
same altitude.

>Visibility: I'm not sure if I've highlighted this before. Glider
>pilot Mike Havener, who wrote an article 'Soaring with Pelicans'
>describing his extraordinary experiences being joined in flight
>by these gregarious birds, was asked if he could offer an
>experienced opinion on this point. He replied, >

>"Visibility depends on several factors. The one having the most
>effect of course is how much 'haze' or other particulate matter
>is in the air (i.e. smog, smoke). At low altitudes, visibility
>is lowered because of this.

>Myself, (a pilot with average eyesight) I can distinguish the
>basic shape (a body with wings) of these pelicans from about 4
>miles when flying above the haze. From 4 to maybe 6 miles they
>become small dots. Beyond that, I'd say they would probably not
>be distinguishable other than some sort of relative motion that
>may catch your eye".

>Presumably we keep in mind that Arnold noted how perfect the
>visibility was that day.

Yes... but it would be nice to know what the background was like
when Mr. Havener saw the pelicans at up to 6 miles (did he
measure the distance?  How does he know it wasn't 3 or 7?). Did
he see them against snow?

>Speed: It might be a mistake to underestimate just how fast
>these birds can fly. Although awkward on the ground, with that
>10 feet wingspan they are majestic in the air and I've already
>provided wonderful evidence from Mike Havener that a flock of
>pelicans were comfortably flying with him at 52 m.p.h. Mike also
>writes in his article that, "I reluctantly sped up to 80 m.p.h.
>to put some distance between us".>>

One wonders how long and at what altitude they can maintain 52
mph or there abouts.


>>There's maybe another factor to consider. If any formation of
>>birds observed a larger object flying towards them, it seems
>>>way, possibly reaching their top speed if necessary.>

In this case, if they were approaching Arnold's track at his
altitude, they might swerve away.

>So what if - and we are only considering 'what if' calculations:

>Arnold's airspeed was closer to 60 m.p.h. and our conceivable
>birds were travelling at 30 m.p.h., or some identical ratio
>where Arnold's speed is twice as fast - say, 80/40.>

Better make it 80/40 to be on the safe (for Arnold) side.

>Plus, the 'objects' are first sighted four miles away

OK, but not directly ahead.   They are seen to the left. Note
that from Mineral, Mt. Rainier is to the left and the objects
were first seen to the left of Rainier.

Hence a complete specification requires a radial distance from
Arnold, say 4 miles, and a distance north of his (almost) direct
track to the east.

>At 60 m.p.h., Arnold's approaching them at 1 mile per minute.

and the birds are doing 30 mph, 1/2 mile/minute ......and
Arnold's plane goes into a stall and he crashes....


>After 1 minute, if said birds remained stationary, they are
>still three miles away.
You've moved Arnold 1 mile along his path toward the east...

>Except that they are moving towards Arnold's flight path at 5
>mile per minute.

HUH? I presume they are not 300 mph birds, but rather that you
meant they are traveling 0.5 miles per minute. They are flying
south.

And, unless they started only 1/2 mile north of his path (or
less than 1/2 miles) they have not yet reached his path.

If they started 1 mile north of his track, by the time they get
to hi track,..and are directly ahead of the, Arnold is closer to
them than 2 miles (in fact they are about 1.9 miles ahead of
him....   Reference Pythagoras and the assumption that they are
1 miles north of his track when they are 4 miles away from him.)

If they were 2 miles north of his track when he first saw them
(at an angle northward of  about 30 degrees), then it took them
4 minutes (at 30 mph) to reach his track and at that time.... he
was there too.  They crashed!

>At what angle though?
I gave possible angle above.
and in a in a previous post.... and PELICAN PARTISANS
see below....

>Anyway, at some point, they theoretically pass Arnold's flight
>path, heading in the approximate direction of Mt Adams.

Yes.  Has Arnold passed them yet?

>They're also still heading away from Arnold and if he turns his
>airplane **due south**, they will continue to travel further
>away.

Well..... they continue south, with Arnold on their tails, more
or less...and going twice as fast as they...

>Arnold will eventually make some headway towards them, however,
>if he has already decided these objects are much further than
>they truly are, there's no point in him pursuing them. Come on!

If they are close, as they would have been if birds (within a
couple of miles at most) he woudl realize it by the parallax
effect... the rate of rotation of his sighting line as he flies
along at twice their speed and observes the sighting direction
from him to them with respect to numerous background reference
points (mountains). Yeah, there's no point in pursuing them
because he realizes he is catching up with.... birds!

>So far as I can see, there's no evidence that he did.
Yup.... he couldn't catch up with objects doind 1,700 mph.

>We do know that after one minute and forty seconds, he's
>determined they are already at Mt Adams and distant, hardly
>visible objects.
Yup..... Super Pelicans

>Does this scenario allow the possibility that these were not
>distant 'objects' - only some 4 miles away, yet sufficiently far
>and moving fast enough to always be illusory against the snow
>covered mountains?

Huh?  ALWAYS illusory against the snow covered mountains? Arnold
would have to be a complete novice to flying to think that
objects at 4 miles or less, going more slowly than he, were at
much greater distances and going much much faster than he....
especially after his crucial "bird plucker" test of flying in th
same direction as the objects.

>If not, for the sake of a best/worst scenario, let's finish off
>the discussion by upping the bird's airspeed to 50 m.p.h. -
>which they can do - drop Arnold's "coming out of turn and
>searching" to 60 and put the 'objects', in 'perfect visibility',
>i>nitially five miles away.

>Do you reckon it's still an untenable (if unpalatable)
>possibility?

I'll accept 50 mph for the birds and even 5 miles for a "setup"
as long as you accept 100 mph for Arnold's plane. But....before
accepting 60 mph for Arnold you have better get permission from
a knowledgable pilot as to whether or not Arnold would be likely
to trim out his plane at a snails-pace 60 mph (assuming he could
go that slowly!).

....................................................


PELICANS
For Pelican Partisans Only:
(MODIFIED from the original presentation a week or so
ago)

Let's forget the claim of going in and out of the mountains for
the moment and simply concentrate on the directions to the
objects (a) when first seen, (b) when passing Mt. Rainier, (c)
when in the direction of Mt. Adams. Assume Arnold was close to
Mineral, Washington, about 25 miles radially from Rainier; more
specifically, 23 miles west and 10 miles south of Rainier.  That
puts Rainier at 23 degrees north of due east of Arnold or at
azimuth 90-23 = 67 degrees (north is azimuth 0 degrees).

OK, get yourself some graph paper with 1" squares (or larger)
and let 1" = a mile (or some other convenient square size on the
graph paper).

At the left side of the paper near the middle place a point.
That is Arnold's starting position.   Let north be "up" on the
graph paper.   Draw a line from Arnold's starting position at a
azimith of 15 degrees.   This is approximately the direction to
Mt. Baker.

Draw another line with azimuth 67 degrees.  This is the
direction to Mt. Rainier (about 25 miles away..... it will not
appear on your graph paper unless you have BIG paper or squares
smaller than 1").   Draw another line at azimuth 95 deg.  This
is Arnold's track toward Yakima.   Draw a final line at azimuth
136 deg. This is the direction to Mt. Adams over 50 miles away.
Now let's construct a diagram of ARNOLD vs the PELICANS.

So let's characterize Pelicans this way:

wingspan - 10 ft
length - 3 ft (? a bit much?)
TOP speed - 50 mph or 0.83 miles/min or 73 ft/sec
TOP altitude - 14,000? ft.
Flight Direction:   170 azimuth (could be 180 or
160...won't make much difference to this disaster)

Let us charactersize Arnold by
altitude - 9,200 ft
speed -  100 mph or 1.67 mi/min or 147 ft/sec

Note that this estimate of Arnold's speed is probably low. We
also characterize this reconstruction by the overall time of the
observation.  Arnold said 2.5 - 3 minutes. Let's pick 2.5 (as
being advantageous to the P hypothesis) In that time birds fly
2.5 x .83 = 2.1 miles In that time Arnold flies 4.2 mi

Now go to your finely executed graph paper with the radial lines
emanating from Arnold's starting position and follow me. Mark 4
miles along the 15 deg azimuth radial.   This is the assumed
initial distance of the pelicans.  At this distance they would
appear as dots against the sky...or mountainous background
(Ignore observation by of arnold about metallic-like bright
flashes).

What do we find at the _start_ of the sighting? -angular size
(birds seen nearly head on, flying south) at same altitude, and
4 miles away angular size = arctan (10 ft/4 miles) = 0.47 mr =
0.027 degrees (mr = milliradians).... detectable; no shape ON
_his_ horizon because we have assume the same height as Arnold

Now draw a line from this initial bird position along the 170
azimuth direction.  Make the line 2.1 miles long, the distance
the birds flew during the 2.5 minute sighting  and see where it
ends. Amusing.

On my diagram it ends about 2 miles north of Arnold's path. But
by this time Arnold would be 4.2 miles along his path, and the
pelicans would be about 3.5 miles behind him and to his left.
This means that at all times they would have been to his left
and the sighting line to them would rotate from ahead-left to
behind-left. Please keep in mind that this is a DYNAMIC
situation: Arnold and the pelicans are moving.   If one is
clever one can find a point of closest approach by marking off
time intervals and measuring the distance between th plane and
birds at the various interval positions.   Try 15 second
intervals.. At APPROXIMATELY  90  seconds they are closest... a
distance of about 3 miles.

But..........

Arnold has already crossed the path of the oncoming pelicans and
they are at an angle of about 115 degrees to the right of the
direction Anold is heading.

One can hardly imagine Arnold describing this situation as
saying that the "saucers" flew down the hogback chain of
mountains toward Mt. Adams.

(pluck, pluck.... do I see falling birdfeathers?)

Oh Pluck, says Easton!  Let's try another scenario

Ignore Arnold's claim that the objects flew over the mountains
south of Rainier and ignore his claim that they were last seen
in the direction of Mt. Adams.. Now you can accept the Pelicans.
Right?

If Arnold turned his plane under these circumstances it would
have been a turn to the left and he would have been flying
northward, opposite to their direction of flight.

Now, as an alternatives assume the initial sighting azimuth was
not 15 degrees. Try something more "realistic."   Assume Arnold
was wrong in saying he first saw the objects north of Rainier.
IGNORE THIS OBSERVATION OF ARNOLD. Instead, assume he first saw
them in the direction of Rainier. SO, mark off 4 miles along the
67 degree azimuth.

Now draw a line 2.1 miles long along the 170 azimuth of the
bird track and note the following AMUSING result:

the birds reach  Arnold's path at about the time he would
arrive.... in fact, if my drawing is correct they pass about 0.1
miles in front of him at 2 minutes and 22.5 seconds (give or
take a few seconds) after the beginning of the sighting.

Hence to accept this birdbrained hypothesis we must assume he
couldn't realize they were birds from a distance less than 1000
ft....although other experienced flyers could not only realize
they were birds but even identify them as pelicans from a
distance of several miles!

There is another slight problem..... Arnold wouldn't have seen
these birds silhouetted against Mt. Rainier until that last half
minute of his sighting. Therefore he coul not have timed their
flight "from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams" over a duration of 102 s
seconds.

Therefore to keep pelicans in the running...ooops, flying... we
must assume Arnold did not see them crossing Mt. Rainier until
the end' of the sighting and then he had about 5 seconds to time
them flying apparently from near Mt. Rainier to Mt Adams  (which
would result in a calculated speed of about 17,000 mph for
pelicans).  ALSO, we assume he did _not_ turn his plane to fly
along with them because the 2.5 minutes were over within seconds
after they flew past (and he then left them behind and far to
his right).


Anyway, I invite Pelican Partisans to invent their own
reconstructions and prove that the objects could have been
pelicans.   Please be specific as to which of Arnold's sighting
details we no longer need to accept as accurate in order to





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:28:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:12:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:03:35 -0300
>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:44:13 -0400
>>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


>At 60 MPH The Callair would have been about ready to fall out of
>the sky. Certainly if he had turned, upping his wing-stall speed
>he would have entered an incipient spin, then a full spin. The
>Call air cruised at about 100-120 MPH and with its short wing
>span had a higher stall speed than say a J-3 Cub, Aeronca or
>Taylorcraft [the latter, a high wing was the plane they used to
>represent Arnold's plane in the movie UFO. Real attention to
>detail there]. As search planes go, the Callair was a poor
>choice. His wings would have covered hundreds of square miles
>below him.

Well, I guess this shoots down James "ideal scenario" of
pelicans at 50 mph and Arnold at 60 mph.  Back to the 2:1 ratio





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:04:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:22:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:14:41 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:19:53 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


><snip>


>>If you're going to critique Budd's (or anybody elses) "methods"
>>it would be nice if you familiarize yourself with them first.
>>Fair is fair Dennis. Never say stuff -about anyone- that you
>>cannot prove.

>>Peace,

>>John Velez

>John, you have to much to say that is good regarding people,
>whereas I often don't. Am I getting cynical in middle age?

Can't speak for you Sasquatch, but I'm getting 'cantankerous!'

>Actually, I had an article lined up by Budd for inclusion in
>UFOs 1947-1997: Fifty Years of Flying Saucers. Some of you may
>have seen it, most of you haven't. It was called "Sane Citizen
>Sees UFO" and originally appeared in The Village Voce for March
>1, 1976. It was a classic example of an investigation of a
>single case, that of George O'Barski, who ran a liquor store in
>Chelsea where Budd routinely bought his dinner wine.

Shame it didn't make it. It _is_ a good case study and Budd did
an admirable job for an amateur.

>In any event, it demonstrates that, prior to researching
>abduction cases in the main, Budd was an excellent foot soldier
>when it came to investigating UFO cases per se.

You imply that he somehow changed when he began to investigate
abduction cases. Or changed his methods anyway. In fact, the only
thing that changed was 'what' he was investigating not 'how.'

>To the best of my knowledge, however, Budd declined to
>participate in the MUFON Abduction Transcription project, for
>reasons only he can fully delineate.

Yep. That's a question to put to Budd directly.

>I've not heard much of late about the attempt to have his
>collected alien writing samples analyzed by outside parties.

As far as I know, Dennis, they were forwarded to Stewart Appelle
at Cornell _several_ months ago. I have asked about this myself
on several occasions but haven't been able to get any new info
as to progress - if any. Aside from the 'science', I've got a
'vested' curiousity in the analysis because one of the
samples that was submitted came from me.

>In the meantime, Mario Pazzaglini, who might have made a
>significant contribution to same, unfortunately passed away in
>November of last year.

Yes, I'm familiar with him. He sent me some writing samples
awhile back and asked me to compare them to what I had seen.
Some of it was pretty dead on and some not so. That's what
I reported to him and I never heard from him again. Sorry to
hear that he's passed on. If the news was published on UpDates
I must have missed it, I didn't know.

>This is Budd's material and he is of course perfectly free to do
>what he wants with it, even if that extends to withholding it
>from the scientific and ufological community (until the next
>popular book is published), while continuing to publish
>broadsides against Carl Sagan and NOVA for not treating the
>abduction phenomenon seriously and scientifically.

"Withholding material"?  "Broadsiding Carl Sagan"? Gimme a sec
to compose myself, that was genuinely funny!

What Budd has, in terms of 'material' is pretty much all 'out
there' already. Reports, photo's, some lab results on ground
trace evidence, and let's not forget the much maligned
independant witness testimony. I don't see how anthing Budd has
qualifies as being labelled "withheld." Read the books. Whatever
he has is there.

Re: "Broadsiding Sagan and NOVA"

It was the _astronomer_ Carl Sagan that presumed to 'diagnose'
all abductees as suffering from "hallucinations". What an
'astronomer' was doing rendering 'psychological opinions' on a
program that purports to report on science is one best left to
the conspiracy buffs.

As for NOVA; I personally gave them an opportunity to check me
out in any way they chose to and using experts of their own
choosing. Dennis _I_asked_ them for everything from a polygraph
to a complete medical and psychological workup. You'd think that
they'd jump on an opportunity like that. No dice. Instead they
trotted out the same old lineup of 'suspects' who had no
interest other than pitching their own pet theories. They
analyzed us (on air) without _ever_ having as much as spoken to
any of us. Or even requesting something as basic as copies of
what it was we were reporting! It was a sham, and a hatchet job
and a half. They blew a good opportunity to do a little honest
investigating and reporting. They were much more interested in
sensationalism and ratings. You're defending them to the wrong
guy with me, Sasquatch. I _know_ what the real deal is with that
bunch of Hollygollywood wahoos.

>The question remains: is Budd himself scientific or not? That
>is, is his approach to the abduction phenomenon that of a
>scientist or that of a concerned human and therapist, or
>something of both?

Again something that should be asked of Budd directly. I don't
think it's fair or proper to use the same ruler on Budd that you
would a trained scientist. He is not that and he has never
claimed to be. (Although John Mack should be whupped with
that ruler!)

>Budd is playing with fire. Not necessarily Boylan fire, but fire,
>nonetheless.

Maybe so Dennis, but it won't be me filing the suit. He helped
me and mine. Also, wouldn't you think that if he was really the
villain that you paint him to be that _someone_ would have sued
his pants off by now? After 20 + YEARS! Twenty years, over 600
people and _no law suits_.

Hmmm, what do dat tell you Andy? <g>

And, putting those two names in the same sentence (Budd &
Boylan) takes the same stretch of creativity it would take to
put say Ghandi and Joey Buttafucco together in the same line! :)

Take care till next Sasquatch.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:37:44 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:59:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins



>From Dennis Stacy

>John, you have to much to say that is good regarding people,
>whereas I often don't. Am I getting cynical in middle age?

>Actually, I had an article lined up by Budd for inclusion in
>UFOs 1947-1997: Fifty Years of Flying Saucers. Some of you may
>have seen it, most of you haven't. It was called "Sane Citizen
>Sees UFO" and originally appeared in The Village Voce for March
>1, 1976. It was a classic example of an investigation of a
>single case, that of George O'Barski, who ran a liquor store in
>Chelsea where Budd routinely bought his dinner wine.

>I particularly wanted to use it because it was a damn good case,
>and I thought it would somewhat recast the public perception of
>Hopkins B.A. -- Before Abductions. Off the top of my head, I
>can't remember why it didn't make the final edit, but if memory
>serves (and often it doesn't in my case), I think the Village
>Voice was late in granting reprint rights, which they eventually
>did.

>In any event, it demonstrates that, prior to researching
>abduction cases in the main, Budd was an excellent foot soldier
>when it came to investigating UFO cases per se.

>To the best of my knowledge, however, Budd declined to
>participate in the MUFON Abduction Transcription project, for
>reasons only he can fully delineate. In a somewhat similar vein,
>I've not heard much of late about the attempt to have his
>collected alien writing samples analyzed by outside parties. In
>the meantime, Mario Pazzaglini, who might have made a
>significant contribution to same, unfortunately passed away in
>November of last year.

>This is Budd's material and he is of course perfectly free to do
>what he wants with it, even if that extends to withholding it
>from the scientific and ufological community (until the next
>popular book is published), while continuing to publish
>broadsides against Carl Sagan and NOVA for not treating the
>abduction phenomenon seriously and scientifically.

>The question remains: is Budd himself scientific or not? That
>is, is his approach to the abduction phenomenon that of a
>scientist or that of a concerned human and therapist, or
>something of both? Does he keep anything even remotely
>resembling statistics from his own investigations? (Not much,
>according to Sandow himself.) Does he routinely publish his
>findings for other researchers to peer review, comment upon, and
>(god forbid the possibility!) criticize? A quick glance through
>recent issues of the MUFON Journal, IUR, and JUFOS doesn't turn
>up too many case investigations with his name on them.

>An article in the Intruders Foundation newsletter remarked on
>the fact that the aliens never expressed interest in the human
>heart; until I pointed out that one of the Allagash abductees
>drew a picture of aliens opening a human chest cavity and
>hauling out the heart. (See the cover of the April, 1993, MUFON
>UFO Journal for same, or Fowler's book on the case.)
>
>I've met Budd on several occasions, and like nearly everyone
>else, found him an imminently likeable guy. By most accounts
>I've read, so was Sagan.

>If likeability were the issue, there wouldn't be any issue. But
>it isn't.

>Budd is heading down a long, dark tunnel with no headlights on.
>It may not happen tomorrow, it may not happen the day after
>tomorrow, but it will happen. Sooner or later, one of his
>"patients" (or their families) is going to file a serious
>lawsuit against Hopkins over his use of hypnosis and there will
>be all sorts of hell to pay. One of his friends ought to take
>him aside and warn him of its inevitability.

>Contrary to what you (and others) might think, I wouldn't like
>to see it happen to such a nice guy. But Budd is playing with
>fire. Not necessarily Boylan fire, but fire, nonetheless.


Hi,

I want to support all that Dennis says here. I like Budd a great
deal. I respect him because - whilst I strrongly disagree with
both his methods and conclusions - I think he is genuinely doing
what he believes is right. That makes it all the more important
to make him see why he is not, because Dennis and I (and surely
others) can see the road he is travelling all too well. And we
dont want that to happen to him.

But there is a broader issue -  if hypnosis has a long term
detrimental effect on ufology. I am absolutely certain the
latter is the case. Why? Not some arbitrary guesstimate thats
for sure. I base my conclusion on three things.

1: That data without hypnosis is as useful as data with it.

2:  That a frightening number of abductees have spontaneously
told me (and many more agreed when I actually asked them away
from the thereapists and ufologists who had hounded them into
regression) that hypnosis was not a help and left them more
uncertain than ever as to what was real.

3:  Because I have personally been regressed on several
occasions and therefore seen it unfold first hand. I know how
tempting it is to see images and presume their reality status.
My UFO encounter consisted of 50% stuff I could check and 50%
stuff I never could. The stuff I could check was as much fantasy
as actual memory. I wrongky reported basic facts in the order of
the day of the week, etc. With such a track record it would
obviously be foolish to base opinions on ufology on the
uncheckable data that emerges via hypnosis because this test
proves to me that a good portion of it is certain to be fantasy
and possibly all of it is.

I know the counter argument. Ufologists do not rely on hypnosis
testimony as the judge of truth. If a case matches another case
then this proves hypnosis has contributed to the quest for
knowkedge. Sadly not. In my tests I also uncovered clear signs
of cryptomnesia - a factor also noted by other researchers. The
mind losges data on prior alien stories, stuff it has no idea it
has recorded. These subconsciously incorporate themselves into
the future hypnotic testimony creating an impression of matching
prior cases that is an illusion. I learnt to look for what I
call 'cultural tracking' - signs that storylines keep pace with
our technology and the latest UFO fad. They are everywhere.

Incidentally, none of this is meant to infer that I reject the
reality of an alien contact. I suspect this may well be
occurring (although I am not convinced of it). There remain
important puzzles, like what I call the 'Star Trek' effect. By
this I mean compare the l960's Star Trek with the l990's
versions. You will see why they had to set them years into the
future fictional Star Trek universe. It was because the
technology invented in the l960's sci fi as being futuristic
became old hat by the l990s. Our own technology invented
microchips and laser displays and various things that had not
been imagined 30 years ago. So the supposedly fantastic earth
future of Captain Kirk featured anachronistic images like
clunking number counters. To overcome the dilemma they had to
update the science to be more in keeping with what we now have,
which meant setting the story in the Star Trek future. Ofd
course, its inevitable that 'Voyager' will look old hat to the
watchers of 2029 because of then mundane science we dont yet
have or can imagine.

My point is abductions from the l960's to l990's dont show the
same technology erosion. We have accounts that were as magical
then as they are magical now - indeed a relatively consistent
magical technology with the signs of cultural tracking tweaking
the storylines. This, to me, infers that there is a fundamental
alien reality underpinning the evidence.

But, back to hypnosis. The problems with it clearly tell you
that hypnosis is not the way to access this fundamental reality
- just to read peoples dreams and fantasies. These may well be
based on a fundamental reality but we would be very foolish
indeed to base any conclusions about what this world is like
simply by tabulating 1000 peoples dreams based upon it. But that
is in effect exactly what we are doing.

Of course, the problems go deeper. It is not merely an academic
question about whether hypnosis helps or hinders - such is the
scientific debate there are serious reservations about long term
effects on imposing a cultural nightmare onto the population
(the idea of aliens kidnapping and xperimenting on us) when we
have no proof this is real. Doing this on very young chgildren
is a risk none of us should be supporting.

When Britain was doing regresssion we avoided that trap. I
recall the Aveley abduction (occurred 1974, investigated 1978/9)
and Britains first serious CE 4. It remains one of the best
cases world wide as it had no input from DNA grabbing 'grays'
(they were unknown in the UK pre Hopkins and Strieber) and so
shows both the similarities and differences with UK cases. The
overlap between this case and an NDE is quite stunning. The
witnesses even saw their own bodies below them during the on
board alien visit. My point is our research pursued just the two
adults. Three young children were witness too and had patchy
recall. Much as I would have loved us to regress them at the
time (when we still had a love affair with regression even here)
we resisted the tempstion. It was not right to do this to kids.

As you know we had a proper debate in UK Ufology - such as has
never occurred in the US - and took a voluntary decision to ban
the use of regression hypnosis at BUFORA. I am very proud of
this - I regard it as one of the most important things that
happened during my 12 years as BUFORA Director of
Investigations. Even since they tossed me on the streets
(internecine warfare is rife here too!) I am pleased to say the
investigation team (which in BUFORA has near total indepedence)
has reinforced the move. It is seen to be the right thing to do.

I only wish that more if you understood why we chose this
option. Because Dennis is absolutely right. The day when a
genuine researcher gets into serious legal difficulties as a
result of hypnotic regression is a racing certainty. It may not
be Budd. It could be anyone. But it will happen and, I'm afraid,
UFOlogy will be rightly hauled over the coals by the media for
allowing it to get that far.


Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:35:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:32:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:52:03 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>Try whipping your cowling tool out of your pocket (while in
>flight) and making two comparisons with two distant objects in
>two different directions while manually rolling down your left
>window and turning your "trimmed" plane south, and then tell me
>if you can do all the above in a 1947 airplane within two
>minutes' time or less. I don't think so.

There are a number of unwarranted assumptions in this.

1) That the cowling tool was difficult to access. But it is not
a pipe wrench. It is more a thing the size of a pen and was
probably carried in his shirt pocket. Thus it is easy to access
within a fraction of a second. The comparison, likewise, would
probably take under two seconds between the objects and the DC4.
Try it at home.

2) That the window was "rolled down". However, the photo of
Arnold by his aircraft indicates that the window slides back.
This would drastically reduce difficulty in opening the window,
and would reduce the time needed to under a second.

3) That making the turn would prevent other activities. While
this is true for a car, it is not true for aircraft. Indeed,
since Arnold was flying trimmed, he could turn with just the
rudder, using his feet. Such a method, by the way, would
probably cause the nose to drop slightly, while avoiding any
important wing raise, thus reducing the low wing's interference
with sight of the objects while the turn was underway. Arnold
probably lost some altitude, but not much, during such a turn.

When people continue to present arguments against a sighting
without doing basic homework to validate their hypotheses, it is
difficult to take them seriously. All they end up doing is
taking up bandwidth. Please, do what's needed before making
claims.

The key to doing a good sighting analysis is, first, to expose
any assumptions one is making, and to validate them against
reality. There is no point in attempting any analysis until that
step is complete. In the above, the assumptions were:

a) Flying an airplane is like driving a car. Turning is hard,
requires lots of concentration, and use of hands.

b) Arnold had to roll down the window to open it.

c) The cowling tool is large, clumsy and inaccessible.

d) Size comparisons of two objects against a reference
are difficult and time consuming.

None of these seem justified in the light of the evidence.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:12:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:35:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting


>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:14:26 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting

>I credited you for laying the hoax to rest, once and for all.
>(Without raising the question of whether it should have ever
>been on your web page in the first place, given that Hartmann,
>in the 1969 Condon Report, had already cast serious doubts as to
>its validity. See p. 457 for an illustration of how it was
>done.)

Please actually read my IUR article for a detailed discussion of
my knowledge and position re: Hartmann's attempts to reproduce
the photo prior to uncovering the hoax.

I will reiterate some basic points here:

1) Reproduction of a photo, even a perfect reproduction (which
Hartmann's was not) is insufficient to prove a hoax. The ability
to reproduce natural phenomena in cinema, for instance, does not
invalidate the existence of such natural phenomena.

2) Hartmann is the only photographer who looked at the photos
who thought they were hoaxed. Local press photographers did not
believe the photos were hoaxed. Hartmann did not offer specific
photogrammetric evidence to demonstrate a hoax.

3) No character information suggesting a hoax had ever been
previously offered.

I will also simply point out that UFO researchers will sometimes
use data which later is determined to be false. There is no
omniscience in this field, and it is also unwise to remain
completely paralyzed so that no data can be used. Sure, it's a
risk, but one needs to take risks to get something done in this
field, so long as one is willing to modify conclusions should
something be determined to be false or dubious.

As for the Beaver photos being used to corroborate my luminosity
theories, again, I think you are overstating the case. While I
no longer have the pages in their original form (the site
consists of nearly 500 pages of material and I cannot afford to
maintain old copies), I know what was on them.

The following represents the section of my luminosity comments
taken from an article based on that page which was submitted to
MUFON:

"Ventral emissions - are usually observed on objects in flight.
The Beaver, PA case is an excellent example. In some cases, this
"ventral cone" (point downward) is seen to point in the opposite
direction from that in which the object is travelling. In other
cases, most notably, Michel's "jellyfish object" class cases,
these emissions are observed as a cylinder or truncated cone in
a normal orientation. Another well known dorsal emission case is
the Delphos case, where the emission appears to have caused a
ground trace."

In the final version of this, it simply became:

"Ventral emissions - are usually observed on objects in flight.
The Portage County case is an excellent example. In some cases,
this "ventral cone" (point downward) is seen to point in the
opposite direction from that in which the object is travelling.
In other cases, most notably, Michel's "jellyfish object" class
cases, these emissions are observed as a cylinder or truncated
cone in a normal orientation. Another well known dorsal emission
case is the Delphos case, where the emission appears to have
caused a ground trace."

This, by the way, is but one of seven categories of luminosity
descriptively characterized on that page. Again, descriptive
characterization does not constitute analysis.

I hope this clears up some of your misconceptions concerning
my work.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                               Re: Moving Home

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:17:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:40:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Moving Home


Hi Errol

Due to a very bad litany of disasters my moving house took over
six weeks! This has left me with somewhat of a backlog of
emails, in fact I have over eight hundred just on UpDates to
catch up on.

Please if anyone has emailed me privately I will get round to
you soon.

 -- In an infinite universe infinitely anything is possible.

Sean Jones

Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                       Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency'

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:14:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 01:08:28 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency'


Introduction

Toward the end of his life, Dr. J. Allen Hynek was a frequent
visitor to my home, the last of such visits taking place from
August 20 to August 31. 1985, when  he finally left to have his
first surgery on September 5, 1985.  After that his health
declined rapidly and unfortunately he died on April 27, 1986.

During his visits, Dr. Hynek did quite a bit of work using my
computer which was quite similar to his own at home. At that
time, his interest was centered on the Hudson Valley sightings

Time marched on, and after Dr. Hynek passed away, the work was
completed by Bob Pratt and published in book form in 1987, under
the title 'Night Siege'.

One day, revising my diskettes, I found a file labeled
'Imbrogno' which I did not recognize, When I opened it, it was a
paper intended to be the Preface of the book, that undoubtedly
by error Allen had saved on one of my diskettes (on  August 30,
1985, just the day before he left my home).  It is a remarkable
piece, and once you read it it will be easy to understand why it
was not used as initially intended.  I think the time has come
to release it through the internet so every one will see what Dr.
Hynek's thoughts about these remarkable sightings really were.
I strongly suggest that you compare 'The Roots Of Complacency'
(as Hynek himself titled it) with the version that appeared in
'Night Siege'.

Dr. Willy Smith UNICAT PROJECT June 1999

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


The Roots Of Complacency
by
Dr. J. Allen Hynek

Something truly astonishing happened....  Not far from New York
City, along the Hudson Valley, as hundreds of astonished people
looked up, many driving along the Taconic Parkway, they saw
something no one had ever seen before.

Some called it a "Space-ship from outer space" (for want of
anything better) but it was generally described by numbers of
competent, professional persons as startlingly brilliant lights,
in the form of a "V", or Boomerang, silent, slowly-moving, and
very large close-by object.  It has often popularly been called
the "Westchester (County) Boomerang".

The world has never known about this, even though the event
happened not once but several times, and over the course of
several years.  To all intents and purposes, this was a
non-event.  The media across the world has remained dumb.  Local
papers, radios and TV's, it is true, did momentarily carry spots
along with the daily news, but there the news just vanished.

How is it possible that in the United States, where even trivial
events are often flashed across the world, only one TV and radio
network carried an account of this utterly astounding event?
Far, far lesser stories are spewen forth across the world!

Could it possibly be that the whole thing just never happened?
No: many times there was good, but extremely local, media
coverage; many hundreds have personally attesteds to us, and to
many others, that the "Westchester Boomerang" was most
undeniably, very truly real to them.  Furthermore, many
witnesses at a given time, were geographically separate, and
unknown to each other.  Cars along the Taconic Parkway, a well
traveled highway, stopped, and passengers looked in amazement,
many frightened and bewildered at the spectacle.

Police department "blotters" proved that many calls came to
several local police stations, and we have tape recordings of a
number of the police involved.  The Boomerang was undeniably
real; it was not a chimera!

Yes, something truly and astonishing transpired, but was no one
"minding the store", was everyone asleep at the switch?  What
about law enforcement agencies (whose duty is certainly to alert
and assist when something amazing is afoot; what about civilian
and military personnel?

When hundreds of largely professional, affluent people, in
suburban areas, are astonished, awestruck, and many frightened
by what they could only regard as a very bizarre event, would
this not at least warrant and bring forth some comment from the
nation's media? And what about law officers, government
officials and... what of the FAA which supposedly monitors the
airwaves over which the "Boomerang" repeatedly flew, and thus
constituted a serious hazards, especially over the Taconic
Parkway.

And what of scientists, to whom these events should have been of
breathtaking scientific concern?  But nothing...except, oh yes,
a writer so inept at his task that not once did he checked, even
briefly, the voluminous tapes and other material amassed by the
present authors: a remarkable example of investigative
reporting.

His conclusion: the Boomerang was caused by nothing more than a
flight of small planes flying in formation, a totally untenable
conclusion in view of the facts.

How, it would appear that we really have TWO astounding stories,
rather than just one... different but related... and equally
incomprehensible: the story of the low-flying luminous Boomerang
(in itself which could rank high in the annals of science
fiction... if it were science fiction! ) and the second, a
totally unaccountable dereliction of duty (and there seem to be
no other word for it), a complete superb and indifference to
accountability.

It was a malady which appeared to plunge all who encountered it,
EXCEPT the witnesses, into a deadly stupor.  Such a malady, or
perhaps a virulent virus of apathy and indifference to duty,
could immobilize cities and a whole country.  Of course, we
don't know what the Boomerang was really about for:

---the Police and other law enforcement officers were derelict
and failed in their duty to assist the many who called for fear
and danger, as well as in awe and wonder.

---the FAA utterly failed to be concerned for air safety, flight
rules, navigation lights, when told that some utterly strange
and possibly menacing object was cruising close over streets and
house.

---the Military was derelict by not attending to public safety
and matters of National Defense (the country could have been
subtely invaded!)

---the Scientists failed to uphold their "Hippocratic" oath of
science: they were derelict in following the quest in following
an outstanding mystery.

---the media, well, where were they?  Truly derelict always avid
news hounds, rushing to their typewriters or microphones to rush
the news to the world (good, bad and trivial), but where were
they?  Hardly any of the 50 States heard the Boomerang story.

Why?  Utterly indifferent and apathetic?  If so, why?

Of the two stories, that of the Boomerang if by far the more
directly told.  Bizarre and fantastic though it may be (and is)
it merely need competent retelling. The facts are on record.
From the hundreds of cassette tapes in the thousands of
statements made by witnesses, the Boomerang is a matter of
record.  But the second story, well, that is another matter.

This story is not at all directly told.  Here there are no
cassette tapes, no clear cut descriptions, and no policeman, no
scientist, no military man, no media person, no FAA has recorded
why they were derelict.  We can only infer, as one might infer
from the pages of history.  We can only deduce and play
detective.  And we must try, for this second story, more truly a
puzzle, could be of utmost importance to finding out how we, as
humans, act under stress, trauma. and fear..... for the
Boomerang had all of these!

The puzzle has far more parts than the tale of the Boomerang..
It is, indeed, a part of a continuing story of mankind's
pioneering search for adventure and meeting, but repeatedly
dashed and frustrated by those who cannot look to the heights of
the pioneer: by the "it will never fly" or "it can't be done"
mentalities.  These who always must say that "since it can't be
done, there is no need to even thinking about it or even talking
about it.

Therein lies the spawning ground of indifference, of apathy, and
to dereliction of duty.

All those who didn't follow through on the Boomerang event were
not willfully derelict: they were merely the thousands of "it
will never fly" and "it can't be done" and so there is no need
to think about it.  The corollary is: "Since it can't be done,
whatever said had been done, were simply deluded... they must
have been mistaken, and so no need to look into it further".  It
is the failure to seek for the light of the tunnel because there
could 't be a light.

Intellectual adventure is sterile when there is continual
inability to seek answer to challenges, to seek ways out of the
tunnel of indifference.  In the story of the Boomerang, the FAA,
the media, scientists, politicians, the military.... all may
momentarity touch upon the mystery, but suddenly it appeared
that apathy saps further energy to incentive, and in its stead
is a great desire nothing... it becomes a hotbed of inertia... a
great desire to do nothing, fobbing it all off in the guise of a
handy solution, like "planes in formation".

It is not as from a seeming direct desire to be in duty, but it
is more as though the call for duty has vanished, or as though
some bad fairy had administered a sleeping potion, an apathy
draught.

How else might one hold that otherwise responsible law
enforcement, FAA, military, the media etc. would renege on their
duties?

There is a more realistic answer than calling upon some bad
fairy (though it would certainly fit the facts) and that is that
it all lies in our human (mental) nature.  A psychologist would
express it more professionally, but it simply amounts to the
fact that the human mind has definite limits for acceptance and
accountability. In the history of science this syndrome has been
seen many times and in many ages.  For instance, how often has
it occurred that totally revolutionary ideas, so novel at first
as to be utterly negleted or discarded... a form of apathy and
total indifference.

As a homely analogy, one might say that such a totally novel
idea "overheats the mental human circuits" and the fuse blows
(or the circuit-breaker cuts out) as a protective device for the
mind.  The time is not yet right for the age and the new idea
might just as well not been there in the first place.  Mankind
was not yet able to handle it.

Thus when mankind is presented with a totally bizarre, shocking,
traumatic event (the Boomerang?) a mental circuit cuts out.
Instead of a challenge for action, there is a dead battery.
This is, of course, well known in individual cases of amnesia
in, for eample, "shell shock": could it be that a collective
amnesia or apathy can come into play?  If so, might it be
possible that collectively people can react traumatically, as to
the Westchester Boornerang, to a collective amnesia, whether
they are policemen, media people, the FAA etc.?

Whatever be the case, the effect is real.  Many instances in
history.... and the Boomerang is its most recent and spectacular
example... when the breaking point of the collective mind
occurs, it must openly disregard patent evidence of the senses:
it can no longer encompass them within their normal borders.

The Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler in WW II is another sample:
people simply refused to accept, and were indifferent to the
evidence, because their minds couldn't bring themselves to
accept that such a Holocaust could possibly be, despite ample
evidence.  It was also a "mental circuit breaker" a general
apathy and a will to indifference.

The Boomerang and the Holocaust are but striking samples of what
happens when the collective mind willfully disregards evidence
when "it can't take it". The entire modern UFO syndrome is
another: here we have utterly ample evidence of the global
nature of the UFO phenomenon.   Thousands of instances and over
many countries the evidence for the UFO phenomenon is clear, but
those in position of policy and authority (FAA, educators,
scientists etc) are deaf or purposely obtuse.  Apathy goes hand
in hand with the ability to accept even the most inane answers,
anything whatever, just to stave off the necessity to think.

So we cannot at the moment expect to do little about the wealth
of material collected on the Westchester Boomerang (or for the
much more abundant wealth of UFO material). The circuits are
closed; apathy holds sway. But history has shown that in time
the information and questions dam breaks, sometimes
cataclysmically, and later, why, low and behold, the pundits by
a complete irrational turn of fact, will say, "oh, we knew this
all the time!".

Editor's note:

As detailed in 'Night Siege', the first incident was reported on
December 31, 1982, and the sightings continued until the date of
publication of the book, with a concentration of incidents
during the summer of 1984.

Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo
Miami UFO Reporter
For more on Dr. Hynek visit:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1341/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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                        Timothy Cooper's MJ-12 REPORT

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:25:42
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 01:23:25 -0400
Subject: Timothy Cooper's MJ-12 REPORT


June 14, 1999, Jeroen Wierda, director of Picard UFO Research
International (PUFORI), made this announcement on his website:

"Today I added 1 article/report that Timothy Cooper wrote for
PUFORI on the *articles/Mj-12 section. More will be added to
this article soon, and it may be transferred to the Reports
section as well. I also updated an article by Robert Collins in
the Articles/General section (item #1)."

The article comments on the new series of MJ-12 documents, which
were received by Timothy Cooper and later released by Stan
Friedman, the Woods and Joe Firmage. The URL to the article is

http://www.pufori.org/articles/mj12_cooper_mj12_report.htm

but you should visit PUFORI's main MJ-12 site, too, at

http://www.pufori.org/non_frames/mj12_nf.htm

There's also a 'frames' version.

Stig

***


The MJ-12 Report


by Timothy Cooper


Posted with Author's Permission

Index

�Introduction �The UFO threat and the National Security Act of
1947 �UFO sightings in the United States �Unidentified
Satellite Story �The CIA and Scientific Intelligence


"Space is ... where wars will be fought." --Barry Goldwater


INTRODUCTION


The controversy within the United States UFO community and to
some degree, the United States government itself, is whether in
the late 1940's a super-secret extraterrestrial technology
intelligence collection and research and development program was
created by a special classified executive order and whether such
an entity exists today. One could say that the military
attempted communications with extraterrestrials as early as 1924
with the Army's Signal Corps radio experiment documented in the
archives of the National Security Agency when William F.
Friedman, father of American cryptology, first reviewed graphs
and images taken from a crude television recording device of
what has been reported as coded transmissions and images from
the planet Mars.

Interest in extraterrestrial existence surfaced again when the
sensational story of flying saucers and crash recoveries made
headline news all around the world in July 1947. One year
earlier, U.S. military intelligence had investigated the strange
"ghost rocket" scare in Europe and kept their findings
classified. In 1987, documents alleging crashed alien
spacecraft and dead bodies captured the imaginations and
consternation of UFO researchers and the federal government. For
three years the controversy raged between advocates and
debunkers alike. The center of the debate was the disclosure of
a star chamber of military icons and distinguished scientists
known as Majestic or MJ-12 who were assembled and tasked by
President Harry S. Truman with providing answers for the UFO
phenomenon that defied rational scientific explanation. Then in
1994 and again in 1998, new documents surfaced onto the world
scene that for some, was conclusive proof that MJ-12 did exist
and by extension, extraterrestrial visitation.

In the absence of verifiable physical evidence of crashed
extraterrestrial spacecraft and dead bodies from another world,
the actions of the United States Air Force and the CIA, and the
NSA, and virtually every agency of the defense establishment who
have released some UFO intelligence reports to the public, the
real nature of UFO technology and their builders suggests that
they are withholding critical information from the world.
Excluding scanty circumstantial evidence in the form of
artifacts and non-terrestrial manufacturing processes, the story
told in the Majestic documents and the revelations of shadowy
"insiders" and video and still pictures are our only source of
information. Past efforts of noted researchers, journalists, and
researchers when tracking down paper trails have largely
produced very little in verifiable information that can be used
in a court case against the United States intelligence
community. Even law suits have been quashed in the efforts of
one lawyer charging that the United States is under attack from
the skies. Past efforts to attract the attention of the United
Nations Security Council have failed to address the issue.

If the Majestic program existed in the time frame referenced in
the new documents which this author came into possession of and
if the acronym MAJIC was a code word for a multi-agency
technology exploitation and replicating program, then the
secrecy and security allegedly associated with it may explain
the pains that the military and the private sector of industry
have taken to conceal one of the greatest and most profound
discovery since the invention of the wheel.

The report that follows reflects what has been learned by the
author over the last six months and by the valiant efforts of
others especially Dr. Robert M. Wood and Ryan S. Wood who
undertook the challenge of finding verifiable confirmation of
the information you are about to read. Though much work still
lies ahead before it can be stated categorically that MJ-12 did
exist, the data points presented in this first of several
reports demonstrate the reliability and truthfulness of the
Majestic documents as either professionally done
disinformation--or calculated dissemination by "insiders"
without official sanction from the agencies responsible for UFO
and extraterrestrial intelligence collection.


THE UFO THREAT AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947


In order to unravel the complexities attached to the Majestic
documents and the whole issue of government secrecy regarding
the modern UFO phenomenon, it is necessary to first examine the
politics for the passage of the National Security Act of 1947
for in this document lay the beginnings of a secret government
that has existed for over 50 years. It might also explain the
basis for classified national security projects believed by
some to be linked with technological advances associated with
UFO studies conducted in classified laboratories and test
installations in the United States, Australia, and the United
Kingdom.

The catalyst that influenced President Truman and the Congress
to abrogate the Constitution with this illegal instrument has
always been somewhat of a mystery. The National Security Act of
1947 and the more recent Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1974 have allowed the U.S. intelligence community to engage
in deception, cover-ups, gross violations of civil and
constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and international law.

After World War II, fearing a intelligence monopoly by the
military the Truman Administration sought to develop and perfect
a reliable set of executive institutions to manage national
security policy in light of the Pearl Harbor disaster. The
National Security Act of July 26, 1947, created the National
Security Council under chairmanship of the President, with the
Secretaries of State and Defense as its key members, to
coordinate foreign policy and defense policy, and to reconcile
diplomatic and military commitments and requirements. This
landmark piece of legislation provided for a revamping of the
office of the Secretary of War and reconstituted it into several
new institutions such as the Secretary of defense, a National
Military Establishment, Central Intelligence Agency, and
National Security Resources Board. Bearing in mind that this
"revamping" took place in peacetime not war, the diplomatic and
military leadership were quick to view that the NSC had been
created to coordinate political and military questions (which
would include the perceived UFO threat) quickly gave way to the
understanding that the NSC existed to serve the President
alone. This new situation allowed the NSC to assume the role of
fostering cooperation among department heads and provided the
means of successive Presidents the use of the Council as a means
of controlling competing departments.

Shortly after Operation CROSSROAD the U.S. military's first
atmospheric atomic bomb experiments at the Pacific proving
ground at Bikini were conducted in July 1946, Europe began
experiencing numerous UFO sightings. U.S. military intelligence
investigated and forwarded dispatches to the War Department.
Military Attach's in State Department legations in Sweden,
Finland, Denmark, Great Britain, Austria, Yugoslavia, Turkey,
and North Africa dispatched over 800 sighting reports to the
office of the Secretary of State. Scientists and air
intelligence experts feared that the Soviet captured V-2 rockets
and the Germans who designed the most advanced ballistic missile
had somehow increased its effective range and were testing them
over the skies of Europe in retaliation for the atomic bomb
tests. Ignorance of Soviet atomic weapons development was
another reason for worry by U.S. intelligence. By the end of
July the State Department classified UFO sightings TOP SECRET
and it can be assumed that the military did likewise.

Lack of reliable intelligence of Soviet intentions along the
occupied borders of Allied controlled Eastern Europe, British
and American defense establishments began considering
restructuring as a way to face this new menace. According to CIA
historian Arthur B. Darling, "American press carried dispatches
from London, dated October 4, 1946, announcing that British
Army, Navy, and Air Command had been brought under a Minister
of Defense." This move by the British Government may have been
spurred on by a report issued by the Swedish Defense Staff in
that same month that stated that they had been unable after a
four-month investigation to discover the "objects" and they
"were not the V-type bombs used by the Germans." The May 29
accidental launching by the U.S. Army of an errant V-2 missile
from White Sands, New Mexico, nearly killed many Mexican
citizens near the town of Juarez set off an immediate
investigation from the State Department and the Chief of Staff
of the Army which may have given rise to the "ghost rocket"
scare over Europe that summer.

Wishing to avoid another sneak attack, President Truman
approved a joint recommendation sighed by Secretaries Patterson
and Forestal on January 16, 1947, which supported legislation
establishing a council of national defense, a national security
resources board, and a central intelligence agency.

As with the British Minister of Defense, Truman proposed a
similar plan to restructure the defenses of the United States.
As Darling noted in his historical work The Central Intelligence
Agency (declassified in 1989) that a "drafting committee"
composed of Charles F. Murphy, Administrative Assistant to the
President, General Lauris Norstad of the Army, and Admiral
Forrest Sherman of the Navy, wrote the details of the act for
the National Defense Establishment and the National Security
Council. The National Intelligence Authority (brainchild of
General William Donovan, Director of the Office of Strategic
Services) whose members included the Secretaries of State, Army,
and the Navy with the Chief of Staff to the Commander-in-Chief
General Eisenhower constituted the National Intelligence
Authority (NIA) came into being after the end of World War II.
The National Intelligence Authority and the Joint Intelligence
Committee composed of the intelligence chiefs of the military
functioned as an illegal spy agency of the President. It was
first exposed in a story by the Chicago Tribune and the
Washington Times Herald but was overshadowed by the Yalta
Conference and the story quickly died.

The NIA and JIC continued their illegal intelligence activities
and in June 1946, President Truman appointed General Hoyt
Vandenberg to head up a cover organization for the NIA and JIC
called the Central Intelligence Group (some believe it was
really the Counter Intelligence Group for the NIA and JIC) and
one of its tasks was to collect as much intelligence on Soviet
offensive capabilities and possibly determine if the UFO's
sighted over Europe were part of the Soviet ballistic missile
buildup (there are indications from other sources that military
intelligence may have had the answers much earlier). Vandenberg
pressed hard for the White House bill on intelligence in the
Senate. On February 26, 1947, President Truman sent the bill for
the National defense establishment to Congress. Appearing
before the Senate's Committee on the Armed Services and the
Committee of the House of Representatives on Expenditures in the
Executive Departments were Secretaries Patterson and Forrestal,
Generals Eisenhower and Spaatz, Admirals Nimitz and King, Dr.
Vannevar Bush and General Donovan. During the hearings,
representatives of the CIG assured Senators that the proposed
Central Intelligence Agency would have no law enforcement
powers, no subpoena powers, and no domestic intelligence
activities.


UFO SIGHTINGS IN THE UNITED STATES


Alarm bells began to sound off and a sense of foreboding
quickly took hold among the members of the NIA and JIC when
reports from official intelligence channels that the same
"rocket" phenomena had surfaced over the United States and its
territories beginning in the spring of 1947. The Central
Planning Staff of the CIG according to Darling was "soon loaded
with orders for investigation and report of a variety of
subjects that were intricate and sweeping." Admiral Sidney
Sours, former Director of the CIG instructed the Central
Planning Staff "to make abroad survey of all clandestine
collection of foreign intelligence by agencies in the
Government" by making a survey "of the coverage of the foreign
language press in the United States." No doubt U.S. intelligence
was concerned over the possibility that Soviet espionage agents
were sending coded reports back to Moscow of this situation and
this was accomplished through the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence
Service. Any information of this type was included in the
Strategic Intelligence Digest which in turn was included in the
Strategic Intelligence Estimate prepared for the President.

Unknown to U.S. intelligence, the Soviet espionage project
ENORMOUS has successfully stolen the blueprints for America's
atomic bomb program right out of Los Alamos through "moles"
within the OSS and the State Department. What was more critical
was the design for the FAT MAN implosion device that according
to an alleged TOP SECRET/MAJIC document known as the WHITE HOT
ASSESSMENT (released to the public in late 1998 by Dr. Robert
M. Wood and Ryan S. Wood) the design for the plutonium implosion
device was based on technical studies taken from a crashed space
object recovered by the Army in 1941 that according to the
document allowed the Army to "exploit" the secrets of the atom
to "extend our technology beyond the threshold that we have
achieved." That "threshold" was the MANHATTAN Project.

All the files that once was under the personal control of the
MANHATTAN Project director General Leslie R. Groves have not
been declassified and possibly the real story behind FAT MAN may
ultimately resolve that question. It may not be coincidence that
work on the shell design for FAT MAN began in the summer of 1942
before Los Alamos scientists could imagine how big the bomb
would be. Nuclear physicists believed that separating isotopes
was impossible. This did not stop the Army from producing
drawings for the implosion and shot gun bombs and in June 1942
with the appointment of Colonel Groves (retired a three star
general in 1948) of the Army Corps of Engineers by General
Brehon Somervell to head the MANHATTAN project. Only six Army
personnel were permitted to study the spherical design of the
nuclear power plant recovered in 1941. Two were of general rank
and the other four were graduate students of lesser rank. Also
unknown to the Los Alamos scientists was the fact that the shell
for the implosion device was specifically designed to fit in the
bomb bay of the B-29 Superfortress under development by the
Boeing Aircraft Company.

On May 9, 1947, the Planning Committee authorized the CIG to
establish the Intelligence Advisory Board whose members included
Dr. Vannevar Bush, head of the Research and Development Board,
Admiral John E. Gingrich of the Atomic Energy Commission,
Admiral Thomas Inglis of the Office of Naval Intelligence, and
General Stephen Chamberlin of Army Intelligence, all involved in
collection of technical intelligence and scientific data
produced by the CIG for UFO's and Soviet military capabilities.
Admiral Souers, during his term as Director, Central
Intelligence Group, recommended that the Atomic Energy
Commission should have permanent membership in the Intelligence
Advisory Board and would have "direct access" to other
intelligence agencies to secure scientific and technological
guidance in the event that items of interest regarding
applications of nuclear energy for either new weapons
development or for aircraft and missile propulsion should fall
into U.S. hands.

According to unconfirmed sources there was a recovery of a
"flying disc bomb" near Los Alamos, New Mexico, on March 25,
1947, and of another "disc-like object" on May 28 near the White
Sands Proving Ground. The Armed Forces Special Weapons Project
at Sandia Base reportedly had possession and this was not
reported to David Lillienthal, Chairman of the AEC. General
Groves had kept the President and the AEC in the dark regarding
the status of the nation's nuclear arsenal. On April 3, 1947,
AEC Commissioner David Lillienthal informed President Truman
that the United States had "no stockpile...not a single operable
atomic bomb." Truman was also told that a nuclear defense
against UFO's or a Soviet invasion of Europe "did not exist" to
which Truman replied, "What [do] we propose to do about it?"
This discovery was so secret that it was never committed to
paper.

By June the Army Air Force's Air Defense Command at Mitchell
Field, New York, had compiled numerous UFO reports that were
forwarded to the Air Intelligence Requirements Branch,
Headquarters, Air Force Intelligence at the request of Brigadier
General George Schulgen, head of the Requirements Branch. In
Occupied Germany General Arthur G. Trudeau, head of the civil
defense presented his assessment of the Soviet attack strategy
to General Clay of the High Command. The 509th Composite
Bombardment Group of the Eighth Air Force located at Roswell
AAF, New Mexico, has less than twenty B-29's and crews that knew
how to handle and deliver atomic weapons and this fact caused a
heightened state of panic in Washington. Talk of Word War III
was privately being discussed among military leaders and the
Secretaries of the Army, Navy and, Army Air Force.

Fearing the worst, President Truman signed the instrument
creating the National Security Council called Public Law 80-253
on July 26, 1947, as a general reorganization of the U.S.
national security apparatus and thereby reconstructing the
State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee (SWNCC the forerunner of
the NSC) which had been established in 1944. Acting on the
advice of White House Counsel Clark Clifford who was dismayed
by the disorder among the intelligence agencies, Truman hoped by
establishing the NSC, institutional stability to national
security would quickly come about.

The outcome of Public law 80-253 was the National Security Act
of 1947 which in affect, established the sweeping power of the
intelligence community to lie and deceive not only the Congress,
but the American people regarding the UFO invasion issue. The
act did not resolve the bickering and in-fighting that persisted
among defense intelligence and hampered any real progress in
addressing a growing suspicion that something was going on in
the skies over the United States.


UNIDENTIFIED SATELLITE STUDY


As the Army Air Force's "rocket" investigations began to paint
a clearer picture of a real invasion over Europe, a crash study
by the Army Air Force's RAND Project (REsearch ANd Development)
was ordered by General Curtiss LeMay, Director of the Office of
Research and Development, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio, in April
1946. The study published as the May 2, 1946 Preliminary Design
for an Experimental World Circling Spaceship was a 324-page
analysis that concluded that it was possible for a spacecraft
to remain in earth orbit and would be undetectable from
then-existing radar systems. As early as 1945 the Army Air Force
Scientific Advisory Group reported to General Arnold, Chief of
the Air Staff, that a foreign power could position long-range
rockets in space and that they could be launched from orbiting
satellites.

James Lipp, who at that time was head of RAND's missile
division produced a working paper in February 1947 in which,
among other things, thought it feasible that such a satellite
equipped with "television" and long-range optics could "be
placed upon an oblique or north-south orbit so as to cover the
entire surface of the earth." With no conclusive proof that the
Soviets had made a breakthrough in rocket technology developed
by the Germans and lacking reliable intelligence of Soviet
intentions and capabilities, Army Air Force intelligence went on
the assumption that the UFO sightings in Europe and reports
coming in from reliable observers in the United States in May of
that year, that satellites of unknown origin were as the
alleged Oppenheimer-Einstein draft assessment states "are
defacto." This is the earliest known reference to satellites
prior to the Russian Sputnik satellite placed into orbit ten
years later.

After the "flying saucer" invasion from June-August 1947 the
Air Materiel Command issued the now famous September 23, 1947,
Opinion letter written by General Nathan F. Twining to
Headquarters, Army Air Force, in which Twining emphasized that
the unidentified objects were "real" aircraft and that a
classified project to investigate, collect, and disseminate all
technical data was needed. Just two days later, the Air Staff
instructed the Air Materiel Command to re-evaluate the RAND
satellite studies. On December 13, 1948, James Lipp submitted a
paper titled Possible Places of Origin to General Donald Putt,
Director of Research and Development requested in February. RAND
was tasked with producing requirements for component and
techniques for a reconnaissance satellite based on "present
knowledge" acquired through physical examination of crash
remains recovered in the New Mexican desert.

Lipp had studied the possibility that since the "flying
objects" sighted over the United States beginning in the Spring
of 1947 after five atomic weapons were detonated could have been
the result of an overhead, low altitude reconnaissance activity
by foreign power. Lipp presented two possibilities: that the
"spaceships" would arrive in a "group" for a "full-dress
contact"; and that "numerous small craft might descend from a
mother ship" or a orbiting "satellite" launching "rockets".
Lipp also speculated that vertically descending "rockets" would
appear as " a luminous disk" to a ground observer. He also
observed from reports provided to him by the ATIC that the
distribution of reports was "peculiar" in that it if an invasion
was in progress, the sightings would be global in nature. Since
the sightings were focused largely on the United States
(particularly in New Mexico), the localization of the sightings,
to his reasoning, suggested that some foreign power may have, in
his words, "feeling out" U.S. defenses.


THE CIA AND SCIENTIFIC INTELLIGENCE


During the "rocket" scare of 1946 Admiral Sidney Souers as
Director of the CIG requested the services of Dr. H.P. Robertson
to coordinate scientific intelligence with the Office of
Scientific Research and Development after the Bikini atomic bomb
tests were completed. On August 1, 1946, the newly formed Atomic
Energy Commission took control of the Manhattan Engineer
District form the War Department in which intelligence
activities of foreign atomic research would come under the
jurisdiction of the CIG and later the CIA. Robertson became
scientific consultant to the CIA on problems associated in the
field of scientific intelligence.

On April 29, 1947, CIA Director Hillenkoetter received
estimates from a subcommittee created by General Vandenberg
before he left the CIG called the Special Studies and Evaluation
(SSE). SSE had prepared a plan to deal with the possible
surveillance of U.S. atomic weapons research installations by
"foreign" satellite objects and how to deal with the growing
anxiety that prevailed on the U.S. defense intelligence
agencies that Spring. On September 30, 1947, SSE concluded that
if war, or the threat of war was determined by the President,
the Director of Psychological Warfare should control and direct
an "authoritative" coordination. The SSE was operated by
military intelligence and that by an "executive action" the
President could establish the existence of a national emergency
and "take steps to maintain national security" apart from the
authority of Congress.

On September 24, 1947, prior to the first meeting of the NSC,
CIA Director Hillenkoetter submitted a classified memorandum to
Admiral Souers, Executive Secretary of the NSC Staff urging the
NSC to take "immediate steps" to "centralize" an organization
which would conduct "vitally needed psychological operations".
This organization (possibly Majestic Twelve) would have
"interdepartmental representation" at the "policy-forming
level" under the "guidance" of the Council. Though
Hillenkoetter's memo did not elaborate upon the "functions" of
the CIA's participation in the "centralized organization" he
later confided with his Assistant Director for Special
Operations, Colonel Galloway, that he was personally opposed to
involving the CIA in psychological warfare.

It would seem that the "centralized" organization composed of
scientific intelligence and the propaganda machinery of the U.S.
came together in the common goal of appraising the threat of war
posed by the crisis of the "flying saucer" invasion and keeping
the Soviets off balance as to what was occurring. It would
appear that the alleged September 24, 1947 Truman memorandum to
Secretary of Defense Forrestal authorizing the CIA to commence
Operation Majestic Twelve may have relevance here in light of
the above. It may also shed light on the alleged Special
Operations Manual prepared for Majestic-12 teams that suggests
that not only was collecting extraterrestrial technology of
vital concern but maintaining security seems to be the
overriding issue all of which will be discussed in Part Two.


******


WWW design and text editing Copyrighted � 1996-1999 by Jeroen Wierda





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:57:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:21:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:50:36 EDT
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: UFO Updates
>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:45:43 +0100

>>Thanks for all the messages that flooded in over the weekend. To
>>be honest I had not even noticed that UFO UpDates was on the cc
>>list of the original Robert Moore and I thought I was only
>>talking to a few UK UFOlogists. I was quite surprised to see my
>>'spoof' went global. But no matter, it was an interesting
>>exercise.

>>Let me qualify 'spoof'. This was not really trickery. Rather it
>>was a deliberate exercise in taking an idea to its natural
>>extreme. Many people in the UK have been furious over the Max
>>Burns lecture saying BUFORA lost the plot by inviting him. THere
>>were demands for mass walk outs over the issue.

>Boy, did you put one over on us.  Whew! We _all_ thought you
>were serious. What a bunch of maroons we are!

>However, I do understand how this can happen. On more than one
>occasion, I have attempted, thru hummers, uh, thru HUMOR, to
>yell at somebody or other for saying something which I
>originally thought was out of line while in reality, I was out
>of line all along.

>Just one last question, and I do not expect you to answer it as
>I am without portfolio, have not published anything (on UFOs)
>and am not a recognized researcher... nor am I an unrecognized
>researcher.  Having said all that, I expect nothing from anyone,
>except either a chuckle, or a chuckle and some personal
>recognition that the offendee, not the offender (that'd be me)
>got the message. So my question is, based on your more recent
>admission that you were merely joshing, my question is, Dear Ms.
>Offendee, what is the temperature of the sand?

>Jim Gesundt & Jaime Mortellaro, UFO Research without portfolio
>but a lot of Moxie... we mix it with our Gripple and rhubarb
>wine.

Hi,

Er never very hot in Britain, if thats what you meant. Our
summers and winters tend to blend into one season known
colloquially as 'by eck its nippy' (see 'Northern dialect phrase
book' by E By Gum  for translation)

I have been quite amazed as a newcomer to this net thing (only
six or seven weeks of it - seems like forever, but no matter)
how what starts as a nice discussion degenerates rapidly into a
brawl. Why? Can't we argue facts and theories minus
personalities and accept other peoples views? I can.

The asrgument about Budd Hopkins is nothing to do with him as a
man nor with his sincerity - both of which are above reproach as
far as I have seen. It has all to do with the position he adopts
on  the evidence and, because he is so admired, the effect that
has generally on the UFO community. He is, absolutely, entitled
to hold his views and stand his corner defending them. But he
has to appreciate that what he says is regarded very seriously
by thousands of people simply because of who he is. For that
reason people who have influence must be willing to have their
views debated. But we must also do that in a civilised fashion,
accepting that they can be right and we can be wrong.

The very same thing applies to Nick Pope - the MoD man in the
UK. I like him too, but because he is taken so seriously by so
many people he has to consider carefully what he does and says
because many will perceive that as an endorsement. As such I was
not happy with his decision to tell the story of the Florida
tollbooth abduction without giving his readers a proper insight
into the matter. But my being willing to answer questions on the
issue to the London Times earlier this year (after much soul
searching, three years of pleading with Nick to  do it himself
and when they asked me - rather than me approach them) had
nothing to do with my wanting to get at Nick. Far from it. In
fact it was all about doing the right thing by UFOlogy. We all
have a right to do what we believe in, just as we all have a
right to dispute those who feel differently. But this has to be
done with compassion and moderation - not as cat calling and
personal abuse.

Seems easy enough to me.

My response, by the way, was less a joke than an attempt to push
an idea to a logical conclusion and see how people liked where
we then were. This is known to science as developing an
experimental model and its an acceptable way of trying things
out without actually blowing up the planet in the course of ones
mistakes.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                         Re: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Peter Brookesmith-Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:28:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:27:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Beyond the Blunderdome


With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net
>Subject: Re: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 99 13:14:02 PDT


>>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:30:48 -0400
>>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com
>>Subject: Re: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>To: To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net


>Peter,

>>I believe I was among if not the first to express some outrage
>>in public at Budd Hopkins's regression of small children, in a
>>review in "Fortean Times" of an IUN Sheffield conference in
>>approximately 1993. In his presentations (which I taped, but I
>>write from memory) he actually admitted the children were as
>>young as two and a half.

>Since this is a very serious allegation, I think we need more
>than your memory here.  Could we have an exact quote from this
>tape?

Yes, but for me to give you chapter, verse and I context I need
(a) a working cassette player, and all four of mine are currently
on the blink, with a new one on order due in a couple of weeks (b)
about three hours (max.) to listen to both Budd's presentations
from that conference. So bear with me.

Meanwhile, if you look up Fortean Times #72 (1993) pp44-5, you
will at least have a printed reference to Budd's statement and my
reaction to it, written hard on the event, tape machines whirring
and in good order.

>>I don't think Hopkins is honest, although he may be sincere in
>>his own peculiar way.

>Interestingly, I've more than once heard the same said of you,
>for whatever it's worth.

Worth not much. But, as yer man famously said, there is only one
thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being
talked about.

Otherwise, I can't currently do better than Dennis Stacy is
doing to point out the problems with Hopkins' thinking. Know ye,
there is wisdom among the sasquatches.

>>Nor do I think Mad Max is honest. In
>>neither case, however, do I think is there is any question of
>>deliberate misrepresentation or hucksterism. But it surely is
>>self-deception, which I've called intellectual dishonesty (see
>>UFO UpDates, passim), and for which I've been most vehemently
>>reprimanded, most often by people who I'd naively expected
>>would know better. That the strongest detractors are citizens
>>of the United States is not, I think, entirely coincidental.

>Please explain what this last sentence is supposed to mean.

The post you quote was (like Jenny Randles's wonderful satire on
censorship) actually intended for distribution only to a bunch
of British ufologists and observers of ufology who have been
discussing this & that among ourselves, and like Jenny I didn't
notice that UpDates (and Jeff Rense, I see) was on the CC: list.
None of those in that sophisticated circle seems to have had any
trouble understanding what I meant, most of them being somewhat
skeptical (in the Truzzian sense), and every one a patriot
(guffaw).

But the gloss is that of any random sample of American
ufologists, I would predict that more were sympathetic to Budd
Hopkins and his claims than you would find in a random sample of
an equal number of British - or, indeed, European - ufologists.
Thus, criticism of Hopkins might be expected to attract more
detractors from the USA than from Britain and/or Europe.

>That it is rendered by a citizen of the United Kingdom is not,
>I think, entirely coincidental. (Or something like that.)

My own think is that an informed Esquimaux ("in his skin canoe",
ho ho) would not disagree with me. I haven't counted any more
than you have, but you must surely have noticed how often
exchanges that could broadly be called skeptic-versus-believer
debates on this list divide between the Old World and the New.
Given enough time but without too much trouble I could work up a
psychosocial hypothesis for the reasons for this that would
probably put you in a fine dudgeon: although I think the
Esquimaux perspective would be preferable, as more impartial. It
would likely be pretty dry about Sir John Franklin, too.

>Cheers,

And to you.

best wishes
Palmreader D. Moonraking





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:41:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:59:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:04:03 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


<snip>

>>John, you have to much to say that is good regarding people,
>>whereas I often don't. Am I getting cynical in middle age?


John,

There's one too many to in the above. I meant to say, "You have
much to say that is good regarding people..."

<snip>

>>Actually, I had an article lined up by Budd for inclusion in
>>UFOs 1947-1997: Fifty Years of Flying Saucers. Some of you may
>>have seen it, most of you haven't. It was called "Sane Citizen
>>Sees UFO" and originally appeared in The Village Voce for March
>>1, 1976. It was a classic example of an investigation of a
>>single case, that of George O'Barski, who ran a liquor store in
>>Chelsea where Budd routinely bought his dinner wine.

>Shame it didn't make it. It _is_ a good case study and Budd did
>an admirable job for an amateur.

Agreed, as already stated.

>>In any event, it demonstrates that, prior to researching
>>abduction cases in the main, Budd was an excellent foot soldier
>>when it came to investigating UFO cases per se.

>You imply that he somehow changed when he began to investigate
>abduction cases. Or changed his methods anyway. In fact, the only
>thing that changed was 'what' he was investigating not 'how.'

Partially granted. His subject matter did change, but so did his
method of investigation by introducing hypnosis into the
equation. I hope it doesn't confirm my reputation as a UFO
curmudgeon to point out that regressive hypnosis remains a
matter of considerable controversy, even outside the UFO field.
Hopkins came to a fork in the road and he took it. He could have
said, since so many of these cases manifest conscious recall,
I'll concentrate on those and eschew all the problems associated
with hypnosis. But he didn't. Whether he chose the right path or
opened a Pandora's can of worms is for history to decide. But
his influence has been immense, in either event.

<snip>

>"Withholding material"?  "Broadsiding Carl Sagan"? Gimme a sec
>to compose myself, that was genuinely funny!

By mentioning Sagan & NOVA in the same breath doesn't mean that
I'm defending either or both over and against Hopkins. Hopkins
has criticized them for their lack of science; I merely raised
the issue of whether he might not be subject to the same
criticism. Has anyone, for example, seen a follow up analysis of
the sand samples from the Cortile case? Has anyone read the
(justifiable, IMHO) criticisms of the Roper Report and compared
them with Budd's statements re same?

<snip>

>>Budd is playing with fire. Not necessarily Boylan fire, but fire,
>>nonetheless.

>Maybe so Dennis, but it won't be me filing the suit. He helped
>me and mine. Also, wouldn't you think that if he was really the
>villain that you paint him to be that _someone_ would have sued
>his pants off by now? After 20 + YEARS! Twenty years, over 600
>people and _no law suits_.

>Hmmm, what do dat tell you Andy? <g>

>And, putting those two names in the same sentence (Budd &
>Boylan) takes the same stretch of creativity it would take to
>put say Ghandi and Joey Buttafucco together in the same line! :)

>Take care till next Sasquatch.

>Peace,

>John Velez

The mention of Boylan was not meant in any way to compare his
personality or behavior with Budd's. It was meant to point out
that we live in an increasingly litigious society. I've not yet
been divorced, either, but that doesn't mean I won't be some
day.

Peace, bro.

But in the meantime: GO SPURS!






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Judith Jaafar <judithjaafar@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:35:54 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:36:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


Dear Jenny,

I've been reading with interest the responses to the fact that
Max Burns was "allowed" by BUFORA to present what he believes to
be evidence in the disputed case of the Howden Moors Incident.
There are a million and one things that I could say, but I'm not
going to say them on this forum. From bitter experience I have
learned that nothing of constructive value is ever accomplished
over e-mail. In electronic communication, those who wish to
distort and cause foment have an unchecked medium in which to do
so.

I will say only one thing, although I'm probably wasting my
time. BUFORA has never at any time proclaimed that it endorsed
Max's point of view, nor any other speaker invited to lecture to
BUFORA, for that matter. There is an incredibly important point
of principle involved here, one which, since I'm writing to
intelligent recipients, I don't presume I need to elucidate.
Contrary to what some seem to think about the BUFORA membership,
they too are intelligent, perceptive people and do not like
being told to whom they can, or cannot, listen. Who will be
blacklisted next ? Margaret Fry, a veteran British ufolologist
of some thirty years standing, because she happens to disagree
with Andy Roberts' explanation of the Berwyn Mountain case?
Myself, because I dared to suggest that the Rendlesham Forest
incident is anything but closed, contrary to the beliefs of the
"experts" like Ian Ridpath who found it fitting to call me "an
empty-minded airhead" without knowing anything about me, my
research or my credentials? John Mack, a professor of psychiatry
who presumably knows more about the workings of the human mind
than anyone on this recipients' list, and yet is convinced of
non-human intervention? (unless of course he's spreading
disinformation for his CIA masters!) Jenny Randles, who had the
courage to put pen to paper and write "Star Children", a little
"off-the-wall" perhaps for some people's tastes? I could go on,
and on, and on.

I understand fully, Jenny, your desire for this subject to be
taken seriously, one that is shared by all commited researchers.
But in our inordinate desire for our subject to be validated by
the scientific and academic community we risk negating it as a
truly astounding human experience ( minus the knowns , the
misperceptions, the man-made technology ), something which is
touching people's psyches, their consciousness, their visions of
the future, their intellectual endeavours. Perhaps the close
encounter experience cannot be subjected to scientific
empiricism, may never be, no matter how far we advance. Maybe
the reason we cannot find answers after 50yrs. is because we're
asking the wrong questions - perhaps we need to take a side-step
and look at the whole phenomenon from a different perspective,
thereby leaving behind the clay-footed, unimaginative dinosaurs
with which paranormal research is so heavily populated, hanging
on for dear life to their god of science. If I may be pedantic
here, science, we must always remember, is a Greek word
"skientia", which simply means knowledge, with no mandatory
recourse to physics, chemistry, biology or engineering. No
scientific or philosophical breakthrough has ever been made
without the gifts of courage and imagination, often at the great
expense of the initiator. This is why I feel slightly
uncomfortable with your idea of placing so much importance on
physicists and engineers and the like. Do we really need their
approbation? Their co-operation, yes, but their control, no.

A symposium of "experts" is fatally flawed. There are no
experts, only opinions and vested interests. What about the
percipients, the experiencers (as the Americans like to call
them)? Do they not have a hugely significant role to play?
Without them it would be like studying zoology without any
animals, botany without any plants, physics without any energy.
The best you can do is guess, and dress it up as "science", or
science as we would like it to be. If we cannot even define the
vast parameters of our subject, how can it be subjected to
scientific scrutiny? That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take
objective empiricism as far as it can go, but then  we have to
take courage and use the greatest and most profound faculty we
have, imagination, without which nothing would be known, nothing
would come into existence.

I am put in mind of some of the greatest thinkers in history -
Socrates, Copernicus, Galileo, Willhelm Reich (even), who were
persecuted and even murdered for daring to fly in the face of
conventional mores. It's not an easy stance to take, and one for
which you will surely be vilified. What has been happening
recently in British ufology resonates uneasily with the antics
of the early Catholic Church - silencing and extirpation of all
unacceptable belief systems, the Gnostics, the Cathars, the
Albigenses etc., and I'm not alluding in particular to Max
Burns, but to the whole ethos of "control" and censoring
material for the masses, or at least denigrating "unscientific"
theories. Do we have the right to mock and deride those who are
inclined to believe in non-human intelligences? The ETHers may
well yet have the last laugh ( and for the information of those
ex-members of BUFORA Council who believe that BUFORA officials
are muddled in some sort of New Age belief system, this is not
so. There isn't one member of BUFORA Council who rates the ETH,
apart from Malcolm Robinson, tentatively, and he may one day
tell us all "I told you so!" Anyone who was involved with BUFORA
and didn't know this must have had his head somewhere where the
sun don't shine.)

Peter Brookesmith has made a plea for intellectual honesty, a
laudable appeal ( and I really mean that ), but I am also making
an equally heartfelt appeal for intellectual generosity. Retain
one's views and opinions, but respect those of others. Wrong
ideas will ultimately be exposed as such, in the natural order
of things. Life is more profitably spent in enriching one's own
life, than in destroying another's.

In the word's of William James, "A great many people think they
are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices".

Regards to all






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                Firmage Returns To Lead New USWeb/CKS Venture

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:36:22
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:43:55 -0400
Subject: Firmage Returns To Lead New USWeb/CKS Venture


Source: Tech Wire,

http://www.techweb.com:80/wire/story/TWB19990616S0010

Stig

***

Technology News

Firmage Returns To Lead New USWeb/CKS Venture

(06/16/99, 2:49 p.m. ET)

By David Jastrow, Computer Reseller News

**

USWeb/CKS co-founder Joe Firmage is returning to the spotlight
to head the formation of a newcompany venture called Intend
Change.

Firmage left USWeb in January to focus on leading the
International Space Science Organization, a nonprofit group
dedicated to exploring the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

At a press event held Tuesday at the San Francisco Museum of
Modern Art, Firmage and USWeb/CKS president and co-founder Tobey
Corey said Intend Change will provide venture capital funds,
consulting, marketing, and organizational planning services for
a small number of innovative Web-based start-up companies.

"Joe and I have had the opportunity during the last three and a
half years to really eat, drink, and sleep the Internet," Corey
said. "That's given us a very clear perspective to really see
what we call the Internet economy as it begins to really evolve
and take shape."

Intend Change will work with USWeb/CKS to provide end-to-end
services that take new Internet-based businesses through the
complete e-business cycle, from initial idea to full operation,
Corey said.

In addition to USWeb/CKS, Intend Change has several major
investors, including Softbank Technology Ventures, Crosspoint
Venture Partners, Wheatley Partners, the Cutler Group, and Odeon
Capital.

Corey said he plans to act as a liaison between USWeb/CKS and
Intend Change and will serve as a principal with the new firm.

"Intend Change and USWeb/CKS provide complementary services
designed to fuel the growth of breakthrough Internet businesses
that will become the leading enterprises of the future," Corey
said. "We have observed that this is a very new space with very
new rules. And there are basically just a handful of individuals
that have figured out how to successfully compete in the new
economy."


Related Stories:

*High Finance Becomes E-Finance -- The E-Channel Currency

*Firmage To Launch New Consulting Business -- Former USWeb CEO Will Address
The Critical Need For Internet Strategy Consulting







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:04:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:46:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 99 20:17:40 PDT

>I think I've committed what some consider the ultimate heresy:
>speaking well of Budd Hopkins.  Sorry, Dennis. You know my views
>on the Roper poll.


Jerry,

If you're a heretic, so am I. See my reply to John Velez for
kind words about Budd.

That said, your feelings (and mine, as well as those of
countless others) about the Roper poll "findings" (down, BTW, in
the last reiteration of same) seem to hold little or no sway
with Budd himself, who still considers it scientifically
significant.

It's like one of those computer viruses you hear so much about.
Budd gives it to Jacobs and Mack, and, before you know it,
American society as a whole is infected with the bug: Millions
of Americans are being routinely abducted by aliens on an annual
basis (I read it in the Roper Report!), never mind that there
isn't a shred of evidence for such a claim. (The numbers, not
the phenomenon.) Pretty soon you get books like "The Threat" and
Mack's forthcoming second contribution (and God only knows what
its title will be, although The Threat will be hard to top.
Maybe "The Promise"?).

Is it a meme, Memorex, myth, or reality?

Who knows?

But we do know who's responsible for promoting the Roper poll's
so-called scientific stature, don't we? Even in the face of such
friendly criticism as yours.

But I forget: Budd is above criticism. And to criticize would
represent something resembling heresy, wouldn't it?

Dennis






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

             Einstein'S Brain Found To Be Anatomically Distinct

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 01:50:05
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:40:00 -0400
Subject: Einstein'S Brain Found To Be Anatomically Distinct


Source: AP via the Nado Times,

http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,61011-97084-692696-0,00.html

Stig

***

Einstein's brain found to be anatomically distinct

Copyright �1999 Nando Media
Copyright �1999 Associated Press

By EMMA ROSS

LONDON (June 17, 1999 7:01 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) -
We always thought something must have made Albert Einstein
smarter than the rest of us. Now, scientists have found that one
part of his brain was indeed physically extraordinary.

In the only study ever conducted of the overall anatomy of
Einstein's brain, scientists at McMaster University in Ontario,
Canada, discovered that the part of the brain thought to be
related to mathematical reasoning - the inferior parietal region
- was 15 percent wider on both sides than normal.

Furthermore, they found that the groove that normally runs from
the front of the brain to the back did not extend all the way in
Einstein's case. That finding could have applications even to
those with more pedestrian levels of intelligence.

"That kind of shape was not observed in any one of our brains
and is not depicted in any atlas of the human brain," said
Sandra Witelson, a neuroscientist who led the study, published
in this week's issue of The Lancet, a British medical journal.

"But it shouldn't be seen as anatomy is destiny," she added. "We
also know that environment has a very important role to play in
learning and brain development. But what this is telling us is
that environment isn't the only factor."

The findings may point to the importance of the inferior
parietal region, Witelson said.

While the differences may be extraordinary between Einstein and
everyone else, there may be more subtle, even microscopic,
differences when the anatomies of the brains of people who don't
fall into the genius category are compared with each other, she
said.

The researchers compared the founder of the theory of
relativity's brain with the preserved brains of 35 men and 56
women known to have normal intelligence when they died.

With the men's brains, they conducted two separate comparisons -
first between Einstein's brain and all the men, and next between
his brain and those of the eight men who were similar in age to
Einstein when they died.

They found that, overall, Einstein's brain was the same weight
and had the same measurements from front to back as all the
other men, which Witelson said confirms the belief of many
scientists that focusing on overall brain size as an indicator
of intelligence is not the way to go.

Witelson theorized that the partial absence of the groove in
Einstein's brain may be the key, because it might have allowed
more neurons in this area to establish connections between each
other and work together more easily.

She said it is likely that the groove, known as the sulcus, was
always absent in that part of Einstein's brain, rather than
shrinking away as a result of his intelligence, because, as one
of the two or three landmarks in the human brain, it appears
very early in life.

"We don't know if every brilliant physicist and mathematician
will have this same anatomy," Witelson said. "It fits and it
makes a compelling story, but it requires further proof."

John Gabrieli, an associate professor of psychology at Stanford
University who was not connected with the study, said the
finding relating to the groove and connections between the
neurons in the brain may be the key.

"We don't have a clue, so anything that is suggested is
interesting," he said. "There must have been something about his
brain that made him so brilliant."

Brilliance of the kind Einstein possessed is so extreme,
however, that although the findings may give a clue to the
neurology of genius, whether they could apply to normal
differences in intelligence is more doubtful, Gabrieli said.

Witelson said the next stage is to scan the brains of living
mathematicians and look for minute differences.

Witelson and her team acquired Einstein's brain after they were
contacted by its keeper, scientist John Harvey, who had read
about the university's brain research.

Harvey was a pathologist working at a small hospital in
Princeton, N.J., when Einstein died in 1955 at the age of 76.
Harvey performed the autopsy, determined Einstein died of
natural causes and took the brain home with him.

Some parts of the brain were given to scientists, but no major
study was ever conducted, until now.


Copyright �1999 Nando Media
Copyright �1999 Nando Media








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:58:04 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:42:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:28:38 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:03:35 -0300
>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

>>>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:44:13 -0400
>>>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>>>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>At 60 MPH The Callair would have been about ready to fall out of
>>the sky. Certainly if he had turned, upping his wing-stall speed
>>he would have entered an incipient spin, then a full spin. The
>>Call air cruised at about 100-120 MPH and with its short wing
>>span had a higher stall speed than say a J-3 Cub, Aeronca or
>>Taylorcraft [the latter, a high wing was the plane they used to
>>represent Arnold's plane in the movie UFO. Real attention to
>>detail there]. As search planes go, the Callair was a poor
>>choice. His wings would have covered hundreds of square miles
>>below him.

>Well, I guess this shoots down James "ideal scenario" of
>pelicans at 50 mph and Arnold at 60 mph.  Back to the 2:1 ratio
>with Arnold at 100 mph (or more).

Hi Bruce,

That would be my guess from personal experience, though not with
a Callair.

If he was going to be searching down low about 500 to 800 feet
over the terrain, I could see him pulling back the power on that
airplane to about 80 MPH but at 7,8 or 9,000 feet there would be
no point because his apparent speed over the ground would slow
appreciably.

Also, he's not going to be crazy enough to hug the terrain in
the mountains because the winds and down drafts can ruin your
whole day in a matter of seconds. He could have ended up being
the hunted rather than the hunted. It is awsome how little your
little plane feels when confronted by them.

To paraphrase an old lament of the fisherman, "Lord your
mountains are so big and my airplane is so little."

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 19:58:05 PDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:48:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:37:44 +0100


Jenny,

>But there is a broader issue -  if hypnosis has a long term
>detrimental effect on ufology. I am absolutely certain the
>latter is the case. Why? Not some arbitrary guesstimate thats
>for sure. I base my conclusion on three things.

>3:  Because I have personally been regressed on several
>occasions and therefore seen it unfold first hand. I know how
>tempting it is to see images and presume their reality status.
>My UFO encounter consisted of 50% stuff I could check and 50%
>stuff I never could. The stuff I could check was as much fantasy
>as actual memory. I wrongky reported basic facts in the order of
>the day of the week, etc. With such a track record it would
>obviously be foolish to base opinions on ufology on the
>uncheckable data that emerges via hypnosis because this test
>proves to me that a good portion of it is certain to be fantasy
>and possibly all of it is.

Isn't yours what might be called, uh, anecdotal testimony? And
didn't your experience confirm pretty much what you thought
anyway?  I don't say this disrespectfully -- as you know, I have
immense respect for you -- but I'm simply pointing out that the
argument you make here is effectively meaningless.

>I know the counter argument. Ufologists do not rely on hypnosis
>testimony as the judge of truth. If a case matches another case
>then this proves hypnosis has contributed to the quest for
>knowkedge. Sadly not.

I think you've overstated the argument, no doubt for rhetorical
effect. I would urge you to read, or reread, Eddie Bullard's
important paper on the apparent irrelevance of hypnosis to the
content of abduction narratives.  I don't know anybody we'd
respect who'd be so incautious as to say this "_proves_ hypnosis
has contributed to the quest for knowledge," but it does suggest
that things are not simple and that the usual anti-hypnosis
arguments are not entirely compelling and appear (so far anyway)
empirically undemonstrated. Which is not to say, of course, that
hypnosis should be used carelessly or thoughtlessly. We all
prefer cases without it.  It doesn't follow -- as the Hill case
tells us -- that cases with it are ipso facto without merit.

>But, back to hypnosis. The problems with it clearly tell you
>that hypnosis is not the way to access this fundamental reality
>- just to read peoples dreams and fantasies. These may well be
>based on a fundamental reality

Statements like these betray an unhelpful bias. I know at least
three abductees on this list -- eminently sane, thoughtful,
anything but crazy or suggestable -- who, I am sure, would
resent your suggestion that their experiences are mere "dreams
and fantasies." (How can they be, by the way,  "dreams and
fantasies" and yet "a fundamental reality?")  I think it would
behoove us, when we discuss matters about which much remains
unclear, to use neutral words like "narratives" to characterize
abduction accounts, unless we have clear and specific reason to
identify them as "dreams and fantasies" (or, for that matter,
interactions with aliens).

>As you know we had a proper debate in UK Ufology - such as has
>never occurred in the US -

You're wrong. The use of hypnosis in UFO investigations has been
a subject of considerable debate here for many years, and it has
produced a considerable paper trail.  It seems to me what you're
saying is that unless such a debate leads to a conclusion you
agree with, it hasn't happened.  In fact, at least from our
perspective,  the data bearing on the answer are sufficiently
ambiguous to persuade many of us that the discussion should
continue before possibly premature conclusions are reached.  We
may be right or wrong to feel that way, but ours is a perfectly
respectable position.  A sweeping statement such as the one you
make here is not only false but unfair.

>I only wish that more if you understood why we chose this
>option. Because Dennis is absolutely right. The day when a
>genuine researcher gets into serious legal difficulties as a
>result of hypnotic regression is a racing certainty. It may not
>be Budd. It could be anyone. But it will happen and, I'm afraid,
>UFOlogy will be rightly hauled over the coals by the media for
>allowing it to get that far.

And ufology hasn't been hauled over the coals repeatedly
already?  It's naive to think that if ufologists behave
perfectly, journalists (not to mention scientists) will
automatically treat them with respect.  Fifty years of history
tells us that ufologists of all stripes, good,  bad, and
indifferent, get ridiculed pretty much indiscriminately.  There
are all kinds of good reasons for ufologists to conduct
themselves with sanity and discipline.  The expectation that
when we do, the press and scientists will pat us on our
collective head is not one of them.

Jerry Clark







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:22:28 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:52:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:02:23 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:08:20 PDT

>>Mr. Budd Hopkins has demonstrated throughout the past twenty
>>years that he is not - I repeat, NOT - a UFO investigator [or
>>researcher]. He is basically a UFO reporter. And for those such
>>as Jerome Clark, Mark Cashman and yourself who do not like that
>>because you are friends with Budd Hopkins -- TOO BAD.

>I've only met and spoken to Mr Hopkins once.

>I have my problems with some of his work, but I think it is best
>to frame such objections dispassionately and with careful
>attention to what is attainable in this field.

Too often we resort to name calling and ignore dispassionate
discourse.

>I am currently at work on a critique of the problems I see in
>abduction research, and I will do my best to address those
>problems without reference to personalities. That's how science
>should be done.

I have just had my critique of the abduction research published
by TOR (St. Martins), written with Russ Estes and Bill Cone.

KRandle, Ph.D.*

Yes, I have now received my degree in psychology.

[Congratulations Dr. Kev --ebk]






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

               Ray Gun Freezes Victims Without Causing Injury

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:55:31
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:00:10 -0400
Subject: Ray Gun Freezes Victims Without Causing Injury


Source: The (London) Times,

http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/99/05/09/stiinnnws02007.html?1902395

Stig

***

May 9 1999

INNOVATION

Defence

**

The Ministry of Defence is looking at a new weapon that could
immobilise gunmen.

Max Glaskin reports

**

Ray gun freezes victims without causing injury

*

SET your phasers to stun. The Ministry of Defence is looking at
a "freeze ray" that may be able to stop people in their tracks
without harming them.

[The text of this message has been removed per request of the copyright
owner.  8/11/99 by webmaster@ufomind.com.  Request made by
"Allan, Isobel"  ]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                        Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 21:16:10 PDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:01:51 -0400
Subject: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie


Listfolk:

Recently we have read charges on this list that Budd Hopkins
hypnotizes children while pursuing research into UFO-abduction
reports.  I have had deep doubts about this very serious
allegation, which runs contrary to everything I know and have
observed about Budd's ethics, judgment, and sensitivity to
others.

As some of you are aware, Budd does not have e-mail.  I have,
however, just heard from my friend David M. Jacobs, who does.
Even more astonished than I to read these fantastic claims, he
phoned Budd to ask about them. Jacobs informs me -- not
surprisingly, to those of us who know Budd -- that Hopkins has
_never_ conducted hypnosis with children. Nor, for that matter,
has Jacobs.

In other words, we've been at the receiving end of the Big Lie.
Those who have passed it on, innocently if recklessly, owe Budd
Hopkins an apology. Those who knew or suspected it was a lie but
circulated it anyway are beyond redemption.  The former are
urged, in the name of common decency, to apologize publicly.
This list would be a good place to do it.

Jerry Clark





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:22:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:38:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:04:03 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>I've not heard much of late about the attempt to have his
>>collected alien writing samples analyzed by outside parties.

>As far as I know, Dennis, they were forwarded to Stewart Appelle
>at Cornell _several_ months ago. I have asked about this myself
>on several occasions but haven't been able to get any new info
>as to progress - if any. Aside from the 'science', I've got a
>'vested' curiousity in the analysis because one of the
>samples that was submitted came from me.

Yes, Budd sent his samples of alleged alien writing to Stewart
Appelle, the editor of the Journal of UFO Studies (which, for
those on this list who might not know, is the only peer-reviewed
scientific journal in the UFO field).

Budd sent them nearly two years ago. JUFOS, however, is in
serious financial trouble, and hasn't published an issue since
1996. Stewart had said he'd assemble a team to study the
material, but I don't know if he ever did. If he didn't, I'd
assume it was because JUFOS didn't seem likely to publish any
time soon.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:52:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:28:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:44:13 -0400
>Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:23:10 -0400
>Subject: Re: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

>In his report for the Air Force, Arnold wrote, in full:

>"I had made one sweep of this high plateau to the westward,
>searching all of the various ridges for this marine ship and
>flew to the west down and near the ridge side of the canyon
>where Ashford, Washington, is located.

>Unable to see anything that looked like the lost ship, I made a
>360 degree turn to the right and above the little city of
>Mineral, starting again toward Rainer. I climbed back up to an
>altitude of about 9,200 ft.

>The air was so smooth that day that it was a real pleasure
>flying and, as most pilots do, I trimmed out my airplane in the
>direction of Yakima, which was almost directly east of my
>position and simply sat in my plane observing the sky and
>terrain".

>Ashford is to the north-east of Mineral and if he made a "360
>degree turn to the right" and was "starting again toward
>Rainer", which is also north-east of Ashford, I'm not sure how
>he was also travelling in the direction of Yakima.

Rainier is a BIG mountain.  To fly to Yakima, which was almost
due east of his position (actually a little south of due east),
Arnold would want to skirt the southern flank of Rainier by a
few miles and pass over the much lower Tatoosh Range to
Rainier's south.

As far as I can see, that's all Arnold meant by "starting again
toward Rainier."  Stop being so literal minded.  What makes more
sense:  flying directly at the center of Rainier because he was
suicidal and stupid, or flying in the _general direction_ of
Rainier and skirting it to the south on a course toward Yakima?

The 360 degree turn seems like a "slip of the tongue" by Arnold.
What he obviously meant was a 180 degree turn.  After searching
in a westward direction, he reversed course by turning 180
degrees and headed towards Yakima to the east.

>The account in his later book is also different, making no
>mention of 'heading towards Yakima' and stating, "It was during
>this search and **while making a turn of 180 degrees over
>Mineral**, Washington, at approximately 9200 feet altitude" when
>he first noticed a 'bright flash'

Only nitpickers have any problems with this.  In his book he
properly describes it as a 180 degree turn (a 360 turn makes no
sense as it would simply bring him back on his original course
to the west -- a pointless exercise).  It was indeed "during
this search."  He had just finished searching westward down a
canyon -- right? -- and then turned around.  I've never seen
anybody make such issues out of nothing.

>The direction he was actually travelling in relation to the
>objects is crucial

Develop a little reading comprehension, use some logic and
common sense, and its obvious from his own words and general
context that he was definitely heading pretty close to due east
and first saw the flashes north of his trajectory.

>and I would have to be dubious about his 'perfect' sighting
>conditions, as outlined in the Air Force report.

Why is that?  It seems you are arbitrarily dismissing this
perfectly plausible detail for no other reason than debunking
bias.  Are you suggesting Arnold could not have seen anything 20
to 25 miles away?

For those of us who have actually been up in the Seattle area,
both Rainier and the Cascades can be _easily seen from ground
level_ on a clear day from 50 or 60 miles away.

>That aside, whether Arnold was coming out of a 180/360 degree
>turn, or 'cruising' due east,

It's very simple.  He had just completed a 180 degree turn and
was flying east.  Whether he was heading back to Yakima at that
point or planning to continue his search doesn't even matter.

>he was still in 'search' mode, so what was his airspeed likely
>to have been?

>Would he be undertaking a search at close to maximum speed, in
>treacherous terrain, or would his airspeed be much less, giving
>him time to hopefully spot the missing aircraft and earn an
>instant ten thousand dollar fortune?

If he went too slow, he would stall his plane and go into a
nosedive.  Don Ledger is far more knowledgable than I on this,
and if you read his post, he estimates that anything under 90
mph would have been dangerously slow for Arnold's plane,
especially on turns.

Even so,  stall speeds are still faster than "pelicans."

>Which was, after all, why he was there in the first place.

Yes, but not do die by diving into the ground or flying into Rainier.

>Some further comments re the respective figures you had quoted:

>Altitude: As you may have noticed, I mentioned to Don Ledger
>that I had seen a reference to pelicans being known to migrate
>at over 14,000 feet, considerably higher than your estimate
>(although it maybe makes no difference).

Not really.  Had "pelicans" really been that high (5000 feet
above his altitude) and within only a few miles, they would have
had an angular elevation well above Arnold's horizon.  No way
could Arnold have perceived them to be skimming the mountain
tops, which would have placed them at a slight _downward_ angle
of about 2 degrees.

>Visibility: I'm not sure if I've highlighted this before. Glider
>pilot Mike Havener, who wrote an article 'Soaring with Pelicans'
>describing his extraordinary experiences being joined in flight
>by these gregarious birds, was asked if he could offer an
>experienced opinion on this point. He replied,

>"Visibility depends on several factors. The one having the most
>effect of course is how much 'haze' or other particulate matter
>is in the air (i.e. smog, smoke). At low altitudes, visibility
>is lowered because of this.

>Myself, (a pilot with average eyesight) I can distinguish the
>basic shape (a body with wings) of these pelicans from about 4
>miles when flying above the haze.

A 10 foot wingspan at four miles subtends 1.7 minarc; a 4 foot
body .7 minarc.  These are just barely resolvable with normal
vision of 20/15 to 20/20 acuity.  (.75 minarc to 1.0 minarc gap
acuity.

This is actually a very similar situation to Arnold saying he
could see the motors on a DC-4 at 15 miles and make out the
distance between them (insofar as comparing them with the size
of the unknowns).  In this case the space between the inner
motors would be about 2.4 minarc, and between cabin and inner
motors about .9 minarc.  Arnold, like Havener, would be down
near the limits of detectibility.

You can't make out any details, just that something is there.
In Havener's case, he would basically make out an ill-defined
line (wings) with a thickening or darkening in the center, which
he interprets as being the body. For Arnold's DC-4, he would see
an ill-defined line (wings) and darkenings in the positions of
the engines and cabin.

If you accept Havener's ability to make out such things, is
there really any reason _a priori_ to question Arnold's account
(other than whether he may have had normal vision without a
spectacle correction)?

> From 4 to maybe 6 miles they
>become small dots. Beyond that, I'd say they would probably not
>be distinguishable other than some sort of relative motion that
>may catch your eye".

>Presumably we keep in mind that Arnold noted how perfect the
>visibility was that day.

Your point???

>Speed: It might be a mistake to underestimate just how fast
>these birds can fly.

Nobody's underestimating their speed, just noting that even at the upper
range that you assume, it would still be much slower than Arnold's plane at
any _likely_ speed that  he would be flying.

> Although awkward on the ground, with that
>10 feet wingspan they are majestic in the air and I've already
>provided wonderful evidence from Mike Havener that a flock of
>pelicans were comfortably flying with him at 52 m.p.h. Mike also
>writes in his article that, "I reluctantly sped up to 80 m.p.h.
>to put some distance between us".

So at 80 Havener zips past them.  But at 100+ mph, they zip past
Arnold?  Is that what you are saying.

>There's maybe another factor to consider. If any formation of
>birds observed a larger object flying towards them, it seems
>reasonable that they're likely to accelerate and get out of the
>way, possibly reaching their top speed if necessary.

Maybe you think this is a factor, but you also seem to be
arguing that the "pelicans" were several miles away so that
Arnold couldn't clearly make them out.  Why would they get
spooked by Arnold at several miles?

>So what if - and we are only considering 'what if' calculations:

>Arnold's airspeed was closer to 60 m.p.h. and our conceivable
>birds were travelling at 30 m.p.h., or some identical ratio
>where Arnold's speed is twice as fast - say, 80/40.

According to Don Ledger, around stall speed.  Arnold in
nosedive.  Boom!!  No Kenneth Arnold report to debate 50 years
later.

Besides, what difference does it make?  Even with these
extremely lowball "what if" numbers, Arnold is still flying
twice as fast as the birds.  Nothing has really changed.

>Plus, the 'objects' are first sighted four miles away

>At 60 m.p.h., Arnold's approaching them at 1 mile per minute
>After 1 minute, if said birds remained stationary, they are
>still three miles away.

>Except that they are moving towards Arnold's flight path at 5
>mile per minute.

I think you mean 0.5 miles per minute.  5 miles per minute would be 300 mph.

>At what angle though?

Assume they are somewhere in direction of Rainier proper, as per
Arnold's report, though it's kind of hard to understand how he
could see white birds against a snow white background under such
circumstances, especially as flashes of light.  But never mind.

Rainier's peak was 10 miles north of Arnold's position, and to
keep things simple mathematically, 24 miles away as the pelican
flies.  If the "pelicans" were 4 miles distant initially, than
the scaling factor is 24/4 = 6.  Divide 10 miles by 6, and the
boirds would be 1.67 miles north of his position.  To keep it
simple and maximally advantageous to the pelican hypothesis,
call it 1.5 miles.  Similarly Arnold would be 3.6 miles from the
intercept point if they were flying due south.  Call it 3.5 mile
for simplicity.

>Anyway, at some point, they theoretically pass Arnold's flight
>path, heading in the approximate direction of Mt Adams.

Under your assumptions, Arnold would be practically right on top
of them.  Assume they are flying 30 mph and Arnold 60.  It would
take them 3 minutes to fly 1.5 miles south to the intercept
point (the entirety of Arnold's sighting BTW with no time left
for Arnold's 100 second timed observation afterwards).  Arnold
would have flown 3 miles east in this period, taking him within
.5 miles of the pelicans when they flew past his course heading.

If Havener can recognize these pelicans at 4 miles as still
being boirds, do you think Arnold might have similar abilities
at only 1/2 mile?

>They're also still heading away from Arnold and if he turns his
>airplane **due south**, they will continue to travel further
>away.

No they won't!  Arnold is moving twice as fast as they are,
isn't he?  If he goes into an immediate 90 turn to the south to
follow and to keep from flying right past their course within
half a minute, he is going to continue to draw closer.  Say it
take him 30 seconds to make his turn.  The boirds have gone
another 1/4 mile south.  But Arnold has gone about another 1/4
mile east and 1/4 mile south since he is moving twice as fast.
So by the time he completes his turn, they are due east and only
1/4 mile away

>Arnold will eventually make some headway towards them, however,
>he can practically pluck out their pin feathers.

>if he has already decided these objects are much further than
>they truly are, there's no point in him pursuing them.

I just see the usual Eastonian mathematical and logical
witlessness at work here.  Arnold is so close at this point,
it's virtually impossible for him not to recognize them for what
they are, even if they hypothetically spook and pick up speed.
He will hardly perceive them as being way off in the distance.
While they might appear to be dots at the very beginning of this
scenario, they are clearly looming larger in size at every
moment as they _approach_ on an intercept course.  Translation:
Arnold sees that he is quickly getting closer to them all the
time.

 By the time they cross his path and Arnold turns on a parallel
course, they are no longer dots but clearly defined objects full
of details like beaks, flapping wings, and the like.  At a
quarter mile, their wings subtend an angle about equal to that
of the full moon.

>So far as I can see, there's no evidence that he did.

Yawn.  There's nothing to pursue.  He's already flown past them
and left them in his wake.

>We do know that after one minute and forty seconds, he's
>determined they are already at Mt Adams and distant, hardly
>visible objects.

No, no!   What we DO know, under your stated assumptions, is
that your pelicans would be on an intercept course with Arnold,
would be quickly growing in size and discernibility, and would
be EASILY recognizable by the time they flew past his initial
heading, even with the most generous of assumptions imaginable
to the pelican hypothesis.  He could hardly perceive them as
being way off in the distance and getting further away.

Furthermore, when Arnold turned to follow, he would overtake
them very quickly, in much less time than a minute and forty
seconds, again even using extremely generous assumptions.  After
a minute and fourty seconds, Arnold would have flown well past
them.  They would not be in front of him to the southeast in the
direction of Mt. Adams, but in BACK OF HIM to the northeast
somewhere.

>Does this scenario allow the possibility that these were not
>distant 'objects' - only some 4 miles away, yet sufficiently far
>and moving fast enough to always be illusory against the snow
>covered mountains?

Nope, not even close.

>If not, for the sake of a best/worst scenario, let's finish off
>the discussion by upping the bird's airspeed to 50 m.p.h. -
>which they can do - drop Arnold's "coming out of turn and
>searching" to 60 and put the 'objects', in 'perfect visibility',
>initially five miles away.

>Do you reckon it's still an untenable (if unpalatable)
>possibility?

Even if Arnold was going at a death-defying 60 mph and the pelicans sped up
to 50 mph (after Arnold presumably spooked them by getting too CLOSE -- hint,
hint), Arnold is going to see them rapidly looming up initially as he
approaches their position.   As they cross in front of him, about 1/2 mile
away, and at all times thereafter, they will be easily recognizable.  After
his turn at only 60 mph (which, says Don Ledger, would actually send him
crashing to earth) he will continue to catch up with them.  These will not
seem like objects continuing to move forward of his position and out of
sight.  They will start to move backward and continue to grow in size.
Arnold will never lose sight of them at such close range.

James, the fact that you even have to pose such questions publicly, instead
of just doing something simple like taking out a piece of graph paper and
figuring out the plausibity of the scenario on your own, indicates that you
have no idea what is involved here.  Bruce Maccabee has tried to lead you
through exactly such a scenario 2 or 3 times before, pointing out, as I have,
that Arnold would fly right into any birds on the intercept course described,
that he would get so close the birds would be easily recognizable, and that
he would still zip right past them once he made his turn onto a parallel
course.

Pelicans, geese, swans ... it doesn't matter.  The bird hypothesis is
completely untenable no matter how one tries to massage the numbers.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: John Heptonstall <Heptonstall@mac-tcm.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:35:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:17:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

>From: judith jaafar <judithjaafar@compuserve.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: 18 June 1999 00:35

Hi Judith

I agree with much of your message but feel there's a relatively
simple solution that consistently fails ( as with the Burns
lecture to BUFORA ) to be adopted - before allowing a forum to
ANY person, ensure that they have reasonable evidence to support
their theory.

If you allow anyone to speak about anything without prior
vetting and applying some simple rules you end up with the
current unacceptable complex of 'theory' and 'conjecture'. I
know we are often dealing with 'paranormal' and therefore by
definition 'difficult to explain' phenomena but that cannot
preclude expecting one to provide explanations based on
reasonable scientific or anecdotal evidence.

Socrates, and yes even Reich, had reasonable evidence on which
to base their theories. They ( especially Reich ) were met with
a solid wall of disbelief, not because of lack of evidence but
for 'political' reasons. That's often seen in UFOlogy in the
form of extreme 'sceptics' who, despite workable evidence,
continue to verbally criticise workable theories irrationally (
and sometimes through the provision of their own un-workable
theories! ).

If Margaret Fry can produce a working hypothesis based on all
evidence of Berwyn Mountain then that's fine; if she cannot she
should accept her failings. Andy's theory appears to fit the
evidence, he may ultimately be proved wrong ( as may Dave and
the Derby's case ) but let's not entertain any old theorist who,
without workable evidence, decides to contradict another.

Prejudice is another thing, and can be discounted amongst the
objective group in favour of workable evidence.

Regards

John.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Lynda Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 07:40:05 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:16:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: judith jaafar <judithjaafar@compuserve.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: 18 June 1999 00:35

Fatal flaws....

Everything is not relative - only a handful of researchers are
able to make any intelligent comments about the UFO evidence -
such as it is.

I actually agree that Margaret Fry should be banned in light of
the quite extraordinary comments she made about Nick Pope and
Timothy Good's superiority through breeding.

To say that BUFORA didn't 'endorse' Max Burns is a huge cop-out
and will be noticed by all. It's never been a question of
endorsement as such - and not one of so-called 'free speech'
(something that none of us have access to, not even Rupert
Murdoch) either.

The idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid is exactly why
Ufology attracts so many crackpots.

Furthermore it is _not_ the case that the scientific community
has ignored evidence of what you call extraordinary human
experience; it's just that science calls these things often by
another name and doesn't come to the same belief-driven
conclusions that we do. Having just read a rather interesting
book by none other than "Dr." Armen Victorian on Mind Control
("The Mind Controllers", Vision Paperbacks 1999. It's actually
surprisingly well-written and researched now you never thought
you'd hear me say that) it becomes abundantly clear, through
official (FOIA) material, that the CIA, DIA, USAF and many other
agencies were and are interested in so-called 'paranormal'
phenomena AND that there is some support within the scientific
community for the idea that things like (for instance) Remote
Viewing (RV) may be rather more than the work of hucksterdom...

That's just one small example.....

BUFORA is the organisation where certain Council members
actively encouraged and participated in regression hypnosis at a
time when it was banned. These things have probably gone on for
ages but I don't think that BUFORA matters any more. The public
would appear to agree. Lancashire UFO Society meetings appear to
be better attended than BUFORA London lectures......

Tim M.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:46:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:33:41 -0400
Subject: Re:  Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: judith jaafar <judithjaafar@compuserve.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - The truth is out!
>Date: 18 June 1999 00:35

Y'all,

Judith's now rare excusion onto a general email group was most
interesting and I am, as you know, obliged by law to comment.
Those easily bored should bugger off now.


>I will say only one thing, although I'm probably wasting my time.
>BUFORA has never at any time proclaimed that it endorsed Max's
>point of view, nor any other speaker invited to lecture to BUFORA,
>for that matter.

I don't think BUFORA (who *exactly* are BUFORA anyway?)
endorsement of most of their speakers was at issue. The problem
was that BUFORA were promoting (and make no mistake about it
when you put a speaker on you are promoting them, disclaimers or
no) a man who has been factually disproved on many counts and
has lied and distorted information to suit his own ends. Proof
of this was provided on many occasions and can most recently be
seen in Dr Dave Clarke's refutation of points raised by Max at
the lecture.

That's the problem.

Now if BUFORA Council (or the few whioch run it) can in all
conscience stand by this promotion of a liar and self-publicist,
not to mention one who openly admitted to bribing a witness with
illegal drugs, then I think BUFORAs general policy is there for
all to see. Council's inability to understand the principles
here only serve to underline their impotence in ufology today.

As an aside here, during the 'discussions' which preceded Max's
ground breaking, reality altering talk (only 35 lucky people
received enlightenment here, society's loss I venture to
suggest) there was much twaddle talked about 'free speech'.
Isn't it thus ironic that Max was forbidden to mention any other
UFO researchers by name in his lecture? Ahh well, by their
dichotomiies thy shall know them.......

>There is an incredibly important point of principle involved
>here, one which, since I'm writing to intelligent recipients,
>I don't presume I need to elucidate. Contrary to what some seem
>to think about the BUFORA membership, they too are intelligent,
>perceptive people

Really? Some certainly are - others are completely barking, many
I have spoken to over the years have a slight grip on (if I dare
use the word) 'reality'. Trying to pretend open membership UFO
orgs comprise any form of intellectual elite is stretching the
truth somewhat.

>and do not like being told to whom they can, or cannot, listen. Who
>will be blacklisted next ? Margaret Fry, a veteran British ufolologist
>of some thirty years standing, because she happens to disagree with
>Andy Roberts' explanation of the Berwyn Mountain case?

Ok, seeing as I'm named I'll run with that. yes, I'd blacklist
Margaret Fry. Why?

Firstly because of her racist statements - I'm sure we all work
in companies who have and uphold an equal opportunities
statement? Why doesn't BUFORA (and before you all get hot under
the collar about it being an 'equal opportinuty' for Max to
speak you should take the time to understand what equal ops
_really_ means) have one? If it did then someone who made claims
such as Margaret did wouldn't even be allowed one of your sad
little memebership cards.

Secondly I would blacklist her because she is a crap researcher.
OOO that nasty Andy Roberts how dare he say this about a little
old lady. Listen carefully - I was criticising her *research*
not *her*. Some facts - and they are facts because I have sat
with Margaret and been told them by her:

1) Margaret has no coherent case file on the Berwyn case.

2) She does not tape interviews, preferring to reconstruct them
from notes.

3) Two of the key witnesses to the Berwyn case were highly
critical of her methods (I have their comments on tape for when
they are needed). Pat Evans said she 'led her on' Huw Thomas
said she started talking about bodies, crash retrievals etc *at
the very start of her interview*. I could go on but you get the
gist of it and I am not making this up. And that's the tame
stuff.

BUFORA should not pander to people who cannot do their job. Just
because someone has been interested in UFOs for a long time and
has spoken to many witnesses *does not* make them a good
researcher. It makes a mockery of the much-vaunted AI system and
if I see certain researchers lauded as 'respected' in any more
books and magazines I will gip. We stand or fall by what we can
prove or disprove, not by the bonkersness of our theory or how
old we are.

>Myself, because I dared to suggest that the Rendlesham Forest
>incident is  anything but closed, contrary to the beliefs of
>the "experts" like Ian Ridpath who found it fitting to call me
>"an empty-minded airhead" without knowing anything about me,
>my research or my credentials?

Who would dare to stop you Judith! It would depend on what you
were going to say and whether it was reasonable and backed up
with evidence or not. BUFORA should peer review its speakers to
see if they fill certain criteria, just basic stuff like having
*checkable* evidence would do. Personally I think Rendlesham is
a fantastic misperception case and as yet I have seen no
evidence to the contrary.

>John Mack, a professor of psychiatry who presumably knows more
>about the workings of the human mind than anyone on this
>recipients' list,

That's a moot point Judith.

>and yet is convinced of non-human intervention? (unless of
>course he's spreading disinformation for his CIA masters!)

If he's got the evidence let him roll! I didn't know he worked
for C &A!

>Jenny Randles, who had the courage to put pen to paper and
>write "Star Children", a little "off-the-wall" perhaps for some
>people's tastes?

As above, if she can back her theories up, why not?

>I understand fully, Jenny, your desire for this subject to be
>taken seriously, one that is shared by all commited
>researchers. But in our inordinate desire for our subject to
>be validated by the scientific and academic community we risk
>negating it as a truly astounding human experience (minus the
>knowns, the misperceptions, the man-made technology ),
>something which is touching people's psyches, their
>consciousness, their visions of the future, their intellectual
>endeavours.

C'mon Judith that doesn't make it _separate_ from the above,
merely a cultural interpretation of same - at least it does at
the moment in lieu of evidence to the contrary. The world and
what exists in it and within the human mind is a far more
interesting and exciting subject than any warped sci fi invented
by ufologists. Read my demolition of the Big Grey Man of Ben
McDhui in the latest Fortean Studies or Strange Daze - shows how
the natural can become the supernatural but yet still 'sexy'.

>Perhaps the close encounter experience cannot be subjected to
>scientific empiricism, may never be, no matter how far we
>advance. Maybe the reason we cannot find answers after 50yrs.
>is because we're asking the wrong questions

Why do people always say that when the answers look prosaic! ;-)

>- perhaps we need to take a side-step and look at the whole
>phenomenon from a different perspective, thereby leaving
>behind the clay-footed, unimaginative dinosaurs with which
>paranormal research is so heavily populated, hanging on for dear
>life to their god of science.

I just _knew_ the keen blade of science was due for some stick
here! Just because something *appears* inexplicable doesn't mean
it isn't. If you take the above attitude Judith you are stuck in
the 17th century when people really believed in devils/fairies
etc. In retrospect it all now seems rather sad, the
psycho-social theories accounting for it all. When you are
living in the heart of something it's easy to get lost in the
hall of mirrors it presents. Take a step back, look at it from
the perspective of anomalous phenomena in previous centuries, it
all makes more sense. Hell, if you like your science imaginative
and philosopicaly tinged read Abram's Spell of the Sensuous.
Scientific explanations for 'anomalous' phenomnena can be
enormous fun.

>If I may be pedantic here, science, we must always remember, is
>a Greek word "skientia", which simply means knowledge, with no
>mandatory recourse to physics, chemistry, biology or
>engineering. No scientific or philosophical breakthrough has
>ever been made without the gifts of courage and imagination,
>often at the great expense of the initiator.

But what was the Greek word rooted in? This really means little
other than you disagree with one interpretation of the word
science. Trying to imply martyrdom for ufologists bonkers ideas
is a bad idea too.

>This is why I feel slightly uncomfortable with your idea of
>placing so much importance on physicists and engineers and the
>like. Do we really need their approbation? Their co-operation,
>yes, but their control, no. A symposium of "experts" is fatally
>flawed. There are no experts, only opinions and vested
>interests.

All highly debatable and I want my breakfast.

>What about the percipients, the experiencers (as the Americans
>like to call them)? Do they not have a hugely significant role
>to play?

Yes, but not when they talk rubbish and we are so lulled by the
glamour of the 'other' that we fall prey to that most hideous of
ufological nonsense 'witness led investigation'. If people are
claiming something, for it to be acceptible it must be proven to
the satisfaction of the majority. Being part of a small, belief
led clique (which ufology is) and as such having delusions of
superiorty (which many ufologists do, in lieu of having status
is the 'real' world) means nothing. It's tempting suggest that
without active ufology the experiences of the witnesses would be
described very differently indeed.

>Without them it would be like studying zoology without any
>animals, botany without any plants, physics without any
>energy.

But we don't interview the bloody plants do we? You seem to be
advocating a type of 'shamanistic' interpretation of witness
experience. That's fine but it doesn't mean doodly squat in the
day to day world and from that point of view 'new age' thinking
is never very far away. And that is a very bad thing indeed!

>I am put in mind of some of the greatest thinkers in history -
>Socrates, Copernicus, Galileo, Willhelm Reich (even), who were
>persecuted

Being persecuted didn't stop their ideas coming to fruition
though, did it (well, perhaps with the exception of Reich's
whose stuff sneaked out). Ufologists of the more bonkers
persuasion *have not ever proved one single thing*, therefore I
think it's safe to say they never will (oooo contentious).

>What has been happening recently in British ufology resonates
>uneasily with the antics of the early Catholic Church -
>silencing and extirpation of all unacceptable belief systems,
>the Gnostics, the Cathars, the Albigenses etc., and I'm not
>alluding in particular to Max Burns, but to the whole ethos of
>"control" and censoring material for the masses, or at least
>denigrating "unscientific" theories.

Turn the telescope round Judith! All we are asking for is that
anyone who presents ideas should be subject to that most basic
of prinicples - having at least _some_ evidence. Not too much to
ask surely, and as the witch I was burning only last night said,
'If only I'd shown my working out better'.

>Do we have the right to mock and deride those who are inclined
>to believe in non-human intelligences?

'Course we do! Why not? Again, read Abram to get another view of
what a non-human intelligence means in relation to humans.

>The ETHers may well yet have the last laugh

I very much doubt it Judith - but neither of us can prove that.
And it's well know that ETH's don't laugh anyway, they're too
scared of the dark!

>Peter Brookesmith has made a plea for intellectual honesty, a
>laudable appeal ( and I really mean that ), but I am also
>making an equally heartfelt appeal for intellectual
>generosity. Retain one's views and opinions, but respect those
>of others. Wrong ideas will ultimately be exposed as such, in
>the natural order of things. Life is more profitably spent in
>enriching one's own life, than in destroying another's.

No problem with this - but when supposedly serious orgs such as
BUFORA wish to promote the patently untrue, the liars and the
deceivers - especially when they have been proved to be so we
need afford them no respect whatsoever, and that goes for the
organisation which seeks to promote them.

>In the word's of William James, "A great many people think
>they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their
>prejudices".

Ahh, William James - wasn't he a great advocate a of nitrous
oxide, a wonderfully hallucinogenic gas which makes reality even
more like silly putty?

New idea - BUFORA should be sponsored by a different drug
advocate each year then at least you've got an excuse for
promoting madness!

Happy Trails






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                     Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 06:27:36 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:41:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:57:02 +0100

>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:50:36 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>>To: UFO Updates
>>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:45:43 +0100

>>>Thanks for all the messages that flooded in over the weekend. To
>>>be honest I had not even noticed that UFO UpDates was on the cc
>>>list of the original Robert Moore and I thought I was only
>>>talking to a few UK UFOlogists. I was quite surprised to see my
>>>'spoof' went global. But no matter, it was an interesting
>>>exercise.

>>>Let me qualify 'spoof'. This was not really trickery. Rather it
>>>was a deliberate exercise in taking an idea to its natural
>>>extreme. Many people in the UK have been furious over the Max
>>>Burns lecture saying BUFORA lost the plot by inviting him. THere
>>>were demands for mass walk outs over the issue.

>>Boy, did you put one over on us.  Whew! We _all_ thought you
>>were serious. What a bunch of maroons we are!

>>However, I do understand how this can happen. On more than one
>>occasion, I have attempted, thru hummers, uh, thru HUMOR, to
>>yell at somebody or other for saying something which I
>>originally thought was out of line while in reality, I was out
>>of line all along.

>>Just one last question, and I do not expect you to answer it as
>>I am without portfolio, have not published anything (on UFOs)
>>and am not a recognized researcher... nor am I an unrecognized
>>researcher.  Having said all that, I expect nothing from anyone,
>>except either a chuckle, or a chuckle and some personal
>>recognition that the offendee, not the offender (that'd be me)
>>got the message. So my question is, based on your more recent
>>admission that you were merely joshing, my question is, Dear Ms.
>>Offendee, what is the temperature of the sand?

>>Jim Gesundt & Jaime Mortellaro, UFO Research without portfolio
>>but a lot of Moxie... we mix it with our Gripple and rhubarb
>>wine.

>Hi,

>Er never very hot in Britain, if thats what you meant. Our
>summers and winters tend to blend into one season known
>colloquially as 'by eck its nippy' (see 'Northern dialect phrase
>book' by E By Gum  for translation)

>I have been quite amazed as a newcomer to this net thing (only
>six or seven weeks of it - seems like forever, but no matter)
>how what starts as a nice discussion degenerates rapidly into a
>brawl. Why? Can't we argue facts and theories minus
>personalities and accept other peoples views? I can.

>The asrgument about Budd Hopkins is nothing to do with him as a
>man nor with his sincerity - both of which are above reproach as
>far as I have seen. It has all to do with the position he adopts
>on  the evidence and, because he is so admired, the effect that
>has generally on the UFO community. He is, absolutely, entitled
>to hold his views and stand his corner defending them. But he
>has to appreciate that what he says is regarded very seriously
>by thousands of people simply because of who he is. For that
>reason people who have influence must be willing to have their
>views debated. But we must also do that in a civilised fashion,
>accepting that they can be right and we can be wrong.

>The very same thing applies to Nick Pope - the MoD man in the
>UK. I like him too, but because he is taken so seriously by so
>many people he has to consider carefully what he does and says
>because many will perceive that as an endorsement. As such I was
>not happy with his decision to tell the story of the Florida
>tollbooth abduction without giving his readers a proper insight
>into the matter. But my being willing to answer questions on the
>issue to the London Times earlier this year (after much soul
>searching, three years of pleading with Nick to  do it himself
>and when they asked me - rather than me approach them) had
>nothing to do with my wanting to get at Nick. Far from it. In
>fact it was all about doing the right thing by UFOlogy. We all
>have a right to do what we believe in, just as we all have a
>right to dispute those who feel differently. But this has to be
>done with compassion and moderation - not as cat calling and
>personal abuse.

>Seems easy enough to me.

>My response, by the way, was less a joke than an attempt to push
>an idea to a logical conclusion and see how people liked where
>we then were. This is known to science as developing an
>experimental model and its an acceptable way of trying things
>out without actually blowing up the planet in the course of ones
>mistakes.

>Best wishes,

>Jenny Randles


Dear and gentle.... ah, dear List Folk....

I've left the post intact because the response should be short.
Now how was I to know, since your post did not carry a header
with an "S" in it, that it was from Brobdignag?  Say, where is
Brobdignag anyway?  Just east of Lilliput?

However, and having said that ...  _MY_ post was not headed with
a large, upper cased "S" needer.  But then, this type of humor is
expected from us Colonials.  As for Nick... I was under the
impression he was Greek and made book.

Shorty 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                         'The Roots Of Complacency'

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:14:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:13:03 -0400
Subject: 'The Roots Of Complacency'


Introduction

Toward the end of his life, Dr. J. Allen Hynek was a frequent
visitor to my home, the last of such visits taking place from
August 20 to August 31. 1985, when  he finally left to have his
first surgery on September 5, 1985.  After that his health
declined rapidly and unfortunately he died on April 27, 1986.

During his visits, Dr. Hynek did quite a bit of work using my
computer which was quite similar to his own at home. At that
time, his interest was centered on the Hudson Valley sightings

Time marched on, and after Dr. Hynek passed away, the work was
completed by Bob Pratt and published in book form in 1987, under
the title 'Night Siege'.

One day, revising my diskettes, I found a file labeled
'Imbrogno' which I did not recognize, When I opened it, it was a
paper intended to be the Preface of the book, that undoubtedly
by error Allen had saved on one of my diskettes (on  August 30,
1985, just the day before he left my home).  It is a remarkable
piece, and once you read it it will be easy to understand why it
was not used as initially intended.  I think the time has come
to release it through the internet so every one will see what Dr.
Hynek's thoughts about these remarkable sightings really were.
I strongly suggest that you compare 'The Roots Of Complacency'
(as Hynek himself titled it) with the version that appeared in
'Night Siege'.

Dr. Willy Smith UNICAT PROJECT June 1999

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


The Roots Of Complacency
by
Dr. J. Allen Hynek

Something truly astonishing happened....  Not far from New York
City, along the Hudson Valley, as hundreds of astonished people
looked up, many driving along the Taconic Parkway, they saw
something no one had ever seen before.

Some called it a "Space-ship from outer space" (for want of
anything better) but it was generally described by numbers of
competent, professional persons as startlingly brilliant lights,
in the form of a "V", or Boomerang, silent, slowly-moving, and
very large close-by object.  It has often popularly been called
the "Westchester (County) Boomerang".

The world has never known about this, even though the event
happened not once but several times, and over the course of
several years.  To all intents and purposes, this was a
non-event.  The media across the world has remained dumb.  Local
papers, radios and TV's, it is true, did momentarily carry spots
along with the daily news, but there the news just vanished.

How is it possible that in the United States, where even trivial
events are often flashed across the world, only one TV and radio
network carried an account of this utterly astounding event?
Far, far lesser stories are spewen forth across the world!

Could it possibly be that the whole thing just never happened?
No: many times there was good, but extremely local, media
coverage; many hundreds have personally attesteds to us, and to
many others, that the "Westchester Boomerang" was most
undeniably, very truly real to them.  Furthermore, many
witnesses at a given time, were geographically separate, and
unknown to each other.  Cars along the Taconic Parkway, a well
traveled highway, stopped, and passengers looked in amazement,
many frightened and bewildered at the spectacle.

Police department "blotters" proved that many calls came to
several local police stations, and we have tape recordings of a
number of the police involved.  The Boomerang was undeniably
real; it was not a chimera!

Yes, something truly and astonishing transpired, but was no one
"minding the store", was everyone asleep at the switch?  What
about law enforcement agencies (whose duty is certainly to alert
and assist when something amazing is afoot; what about civilian
and military personnel?

When hundreds of largely professional, affluent people, in
suburban areas, are astonished, awestruck, and many frightened
by what they could only regard as a very bizarre event, would
this not at least warrant and bring forth some comment from the
nation's media? And what about law officers, government
officials and... what of the FAA which supposedly monitors the
airwaves over which the "Boomerang" repeatedly flew, and thus
constituted a serious hazards, especially over the Taconic
Parkway.

And what of scientists, to whom these events should have been of
breathtaking scientific concern?  But nothing...except, oh yes,
a writer so inept at his task that not once did he checked, even
briefly, the voluminous tapes and other material amassed by the
present authors: a remarkable example of investigative
reporting.

His conclusion: the Boomerang was caused by nothing more than a
flight of small planes flying in formation, a totally untenable
conclusion in view of the facts.

How, it would appear that we really have TWO astounding stories,
rather than just one... different but related... and equally
incomprehensible: the story of the low-flying luminous Boomerang
(in itself which could rank high in the annals of science
fiction... if it were science fiction! ) and the second, a
totally unaccountable dereliction of duty (and there seem to be
no other word for it), a complete superb and indifference to
accountability.

It was a malady which appeared to plunge all who encountered it,
EXCEPT the witnesses, into a deadly stupor.  Such a malady, or
perhaps a virulent virus of apathy and indifference to duty,
could immobilize cities and a whole country.  Of course, we
don't know what the Boomerang was really about for:

---the Police and other law enforcement officers were derelict
and failed in their duty to assist the many who called for fear
and danger, as well as in awe and wonder.

---the FAA utterly failed to be concerned for air safety, flight
rules, navigation lights, when told that some utterly strange
and possibly menacing object was cruising close over streets and
house.

---the Military was derelict by not attending to public safety
and matters of National Defense (the country could have been
subtely invaded!)

---the Scientists failed to uphold their "Hippocratic" oath of
science: they were derelict in following the quest in following
an outstanding mystery.

---the media, well, where were they?  Truly derelict always avid
news hounds, rushing to their typewriters or microphones to rush
the news to the world (good, bad and trivial), but where were
they?  Hardly any of the 50 States heard the Boomerang story.

Why?  Utterly indifferent and apathetic?  If so, why?

Of the two stories, that of the Boomerang if by far the more
directly told.  Bizarre and fantastic though it may be (and is)
it merely need competent retelling. The facts are on record.
From the hundreds of cassette tapes in the thousands of
statements made by witnesses, the Boomerang is a matter of
record.  But the second story, well, that is another matter.

This story is not at all directly told.  Here there are no
cassette tapes, no clear cut descriptions, and no policeman, no
scientist, no military man, no media person, no FAA has recorded
why they were derelict.  We can only infer, as one might infer
from the pages of history.  We can only deduce and play
detective.  And we must try, for this second story, more truly a
puzzle, could be of utmost importance to finding out how we, as
humans, act under stress, trauma. and fear..... for the
Boomerang had all of these!

The puzzle has far more parts than the tale of the Boomerang..
It is, indeed, a part of a continuing story of mankind's
pioneering search for adventure and meeting, but repeatedly
dashed and frustrated by those who cannot look to the heights of
the pioneer: by the "it will never fly" or "it can't be done"
mentalities.  These who always must say that "since it can't be
done, there is no need to even thinking about it or even talking
about it.

Therein lies the spawning ground of indifference, of apathy, and
to dereliction of duty.

All those who didn't follow through on the Boomerang event were
not willfully derelict: they were merely the thousands of "it
will never fly" and "it can't be done" and so there is no need
to think about it.  The corollary is: "Since it can't be done,
whatever said had been done, were simply deluded... they must
have been mistaken, and so no need to look into it further".  It
is the failure to seek for the light of the tunnel because there
could 't be a light.

Intellectual adventure is sterile when there is continual
inability to seek answer to challenges, to seek ways out of the
tunnel of indifference.  In the story of the Boomerang, the FAA,
the media, scientists, politicians, the military.... all may
momentarity touch upon the mystery, but suddenly it appeared
that apathy saps further energy to incentive, and in its stead
is a great desire nothing... it becomes a hotbed of inertia... a
great desire to do nothing, fobbing it all off in the guise of a
handy solution, like "planes in formation".

It is not as from a seeming direct desire to be in duty, but it
is more as though the call for duty has vanished, or as though
some bad fairy had administered a sleeping potion, an apathy
draught.

How else might one hold that otherwise responsible law
enforcement, FAA, military, the media etc. would renege on their
duties?

There is a more realistic answer than calling upon some bad
fairy (though it would certainly fit the facts) and that is that
it all lies in our human (mental) nature.  A psychologist would
express it more professionally, but it simply amounts to the
fact that the human mind has definite limits for acceptance and
accountability. In the history of science this syndrome has been
seen many times and in many ages.  For instance, how often has
it occurred that totally revolutionary ideas, so novel at first
as to be utterly negleted or discarded... a form of apathy and
total indifference.

As a homely analogy, one might say that such a totally novel
idea "overheats the mental human circuits" and the fuse blows
(or the circuit-breaker cuts out) as a protective device for the
mind.  The time is not yet right for the age and the new idea
might just as well not been there in the first place.  Mankind
was not yet able to handle it.

Thus when mankind is presented with a totally bizarre, shocking,
traumatic event (the Boomerang?) a mental circuit cuts out.
Instead of a challenge for action, there is a dead battery.
This is, of course, well known in individual cases of amnesia
in, for eample, "shell shock": could it be that a collective
amnesia or apathy can come into play?  If so, might it be
possible that collectively people can react traumatically, as to
the Westchester Boornerang, to a collective amnesia, whether
they are policemen, media people, the FAA etc.?

Whatever be the case, the effect is real.  Many instances in
history.... and the Boomerang is its most recent and spectacular
example... when the breaking point of the collective mind
occurs, it must openly disregard patent evidence of the senses:
it can no longer encompass them within their normal borders.

The Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler in WW II is another sample:
people simply refused to accept, and were indifferent to the
evidence, because their minds couldn't bring themselves to
accept that such a Holocaust could possibly be, despite ample
evidence.  It was also a "mental circuit breaker" a general
apathy and a will to indifference.

The Boomerang and the Holocaust are but striking samples of what
happens when the collective mind willfully disregards evidence
when "it can't take it". The entire modern UFO syndrome is
another: here we have utterly ample evidence of the global
nature of the UFO phenomenon.   Thousands of instances and over
many countries the evidence for the UFO phenomenon is clear, but
those in position of policy and authority (FAA, educators,
scientists etc) are deaf or purposely obtuse.  Apathy goes hand
in hand with the ability to accept even the most inane answers,
anything whatever, just to stave off the necessity to think.

So we cannot at the moment expect to do little about the wealth
of material collected on the Westchester Boomerang (or for the
much more abundant wealth of UFO material). The circuits are
closed; apathy holds sway. But history has shown that in time
the information and questions dam breaks, sometimes
cataclysmically, and later, why, low and behold, the pundits by
a complete irrational turn of fact, will say, "oh, we knew this
all the time!".

Editor's note:

As detailed in 'Night Siege', the first incident was reported on
December 31, 1982, and the sightings continued until the date of
publication of the book, with a concentration of incidents
during the summer of 1984.

Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo
Miami UFO Reporter
For more on Dr. Hynek visit:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1341/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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                          Filer's Files #24 --1999

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 07:19:01 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:05:59 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #24 --1999


Filer's Files #24 --1999,  MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer,   Mutual UFO Network Eastern Director,
June 18, 1999,  Majorstar@aol.com  (609) 654-0020

Wilbert Smith, Senior radio engineer, Department of Transport,
Director of Project Magnet for the Canadian government after
visiting key US officials stated:

     "The matter is the most highly classified subject in the
United States Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb.
Flying saucers exist.  Their modus operandi is unknown but a
concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by
Doctor Vannevar Bush.  The entire matter is considered by the
United States authorities to be of tremendous significance."
(Top Secret memorandum on "Geo Magnetics" November 21, 1950:)

NEW JERSEY

WANAQUE -- Tim Beckley writes about last weeks Jim Cleary
interview with a Wanaque investigator.  There are a few things
wrong with this report.  I was involved in the initial
investigations and wrote the story up for Fate magazine.  There
were strange things flying around Wanaque that I do not believe
were (Earth) fault lights, because these cannot shoot into and
out of a reservoir.  However, a craft did not go into the water
for a week and stay there.  Augie Roberts, somewhat of a famous
Ufologist and early UFO witness himself saw and photographed a
light over the water.  He said it looked like it had submerged,
but there was ice all over he reservoir and I think this was in
February.  Supposedly it shot down a beam of light onto the ice
and cut a hole into it first.  Some people were even going
around with pictures showing the craft, but the much reproduced
photos were really taken in Pennsylvania sometime before.  They
are a series of four or five photos showing a beam of light
coming out of the bottom of the craft.  Also the Governor never
visited the site.  The Mayor made some comment at a town council
meeting and some thought the Air Force had shown up and
threatened witnesses.  But it was actually an NICAP member who
wanted the case kept under his belt so he got credit for the
investigation and word got out that he was an MIB or government
agent.  As usual things got out of hand and certain rumors
persist to this day.  As in the case of Roswell and other UFO
incidents you have a legitimate case and what is added on later
acts like a smoke screen to make the story sound ridiculous.
There was at least one police officer with multiple sightings
and there was talk that a car had disappeared.  This is totally
without proof.  If you drive down the road around the reservoir
you will disappear because it just keeps on going toward I think
High Bridge; where Howard Menger was having some of his
experiences.  Thanks to Tim Beckley Mr. UFO. MRUFO@webtv.net.

INDIANA

GARY -- Eric Carman writes: "I would like to share with you an
incident that I have only told my wife and brother about."  On a
relatively clear day last June, (I am not sure of the exact
date) I was sitting in my living room at approximately 10:30 AM
waiting for my daughter's school bus.  I was seated next to my
large picture window when, something caught my eye to the right.
At first glance, I saw what I perceived to be children's
balloons floating away in the wind.  When I took a second look,
I was struck by something odd.  There are 4-6 power lines
located in front of the house and these balloons were slowly
traveling in a trajectory directly parallel with the power
lines. This peaked my interest enough to go outside and look.  I
noticed three gray, slightly metallic, slightly oval spheres
slowly rotating or "rolling" over one another as they traveled
horizontally.  Then a low level fourth sphere came and joined
the original three.  They continued their horizontal path for a
few more seconds in relation to the power lines, sped up
tremendously and vanished.  I was able to snap a photo, but I
took it as the four UFOs joined and it doesn't show much.  I do
not know what they were but I know I will never forget them."
Thanks to Eric Carman, CARQUEZ @aol.com.

MINNESOTA -

TWO HARBORS -- Just north of Duluth on Lake Superior's southern
end is a National Park called Split Rock Light House.  It used
to be a working lighthouse but is not any more.  I was hiking
with my daughter on June 4, 1999, along the shore.  We stopped
to see a VERY bright object hovering above the lake about three
miles out from shore.  There were no other objects in the sky
nor any shipping to speak of in the area.  It was about 1,000
feet above the water.  We were unable to tell the size of the
object since it was so bright and we just watched it hover there
for about 30 minutes.  After that it went straight up!  I did
not have my camera with me -- something I regret for more
reasons than this.  There were several other witnesses at the
lighthouse.  There was no aircraft traffic in the area according
to the Duluth International Airport radar.  Thanks to Dave
Briscoe, Minnesota State Director Skywatch International.

TEXAS

KARNES CITY -- Your Filer's Files 99-22, regarding Michael
Harvey's sighting of a UFO while working the night shift for
Conoco Oil Company at an open pit uranium mine.  Graduate
Geologist John Thompson and field investigator writes: "Did that
hit a nerve."  I worked much of South Texas in a geochemical
survey for uranium.  I have stood in many of those open-pits.
Virtually, everything Harvey wrote rings true.  He even had the
designation for Caterpillar 657B earth movers correct.  I cannot
confirm the UFO sighting, but there were many strange things
going on in those days including UFO reports.  I had a rancher
tell me once that two of his cows changed colors while drinking
water on his ranch, not far from a Karnes City mine.  Harvey's
story holds up remarkably well for at least what he claims to be
doing when seeing his UFO.  Harvey stated, "The light was so
bright that it hurt my eyes.  The object was round and the
bright light was coming from the center of the bottom of the
UFO.  Around the perimeter of the craft were hundreds of
penlight size light beams that alternated in all colors of the
spectrum.  Now, I know they were laser beams.  Two days after
the UFO incident, the tap rock was removed to expose the uranium
ore.  We were astounded to find that the uranium ore was now a
chalky white substance that had NO radioactivity at all!  There
was a 250 foot diameter circle of this chalky material in the
center of the pit.  Outside of the circle, the uranium ore was
still as potent as before the incident.  Core samples do not
lie.  This chalky material was uranium before this incident.
Many a night I have thought about what happened and wondered why
the UFO needed the uranium?"  John Thompson comments, "I suspect
that the open pit mine of his has long been covered over.  Only
the most sensitive instrument-far more expensive than a Geiger
Counter-could perhaps, sense the truth of his claim about the
uranium ore losing its potency where the UFO hovered.  The
circular area around the chalky material was still "potent"
uranium ore.  In any advent all the ore would be mined now.  If
somehow the UFO changed the material, it would have been noted
somewhere by a geologist or mining engineer with Conoco.  This
case may be able to provide hard evidence of a UFO visitation
and it would be worth following up and getting a signed MUFON
form."  Thanks to John Thompson MUFON GA State Section Director.

OKLAHOMA

   MINCO - S. Ritter writes, "I have two new UFO reports for
you.  On June 3, 1999, my husband and I had gone on a road trip
and we saw two UFO's.  At first they were headed south and then
the second stopped and started going north.  They were the size
of BB's (an eighth of an inch) held out at arm's length.  We
pulled over at the First American Bank in Minco, got out of the
car and watched them for at least five minutes.  We watched them
until they disappeared.  The second UFO siting occurred the same
night at 10:20 PM, as I continued to watch the sky.  I noticed
that there was a cluster of stars in a small half-circle
formation.  As I was closely watching, from out of nowhere an
object shot out of the center of this cluster of stars.  It
accelerated at a very high speed heading east and then
disappeared.  It was also the size of a BB held out at arm's
length.  This was by far not a shooting star or a falling star.
Thanks to.  S. Ritter at Bbbritter in Yukon, OK.

MONTANA

FLORENCE - On June 15, 1999, at 10:30 PM a gold light was
observed shooting across sky similar to shooting star.  The gold
light then flashed bright blue/green and disintegrated or
disappeared.  It was observed by two people.  Thanks to Skywatch
International Inc.

BRAZIL

Thiago Ticchetti reports that the NOTCIAS POPULARES Newspaper
claims that a Flying Saucer appeared over ten Latin American
countries during Monday afternoon and dawn on Tuesday, June 12
and 13, 1999.  A spaceship the size of a football field may have
landed in Goias, Brazil.  There are several reports, all very
similar, from residents of Chapado do Sul, in Mato Grosso and
Chapado do Cu, Gois.  The phenomenon would have been seen in
Bolivia, Colmbia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Panam, Mxico, Peru
and Venezuela.  The main report came from Francisco Fetter who
was at work and around 6:00 PM.  He looked to the sky and saw a
strange thing.  The thing looked a pot cover.  The size was
about a football field, had lights and became red before
disappearing.  He saw the UFO for three minutes and called
another office 80 kilometers away.  When Mozar Menezes got the
call, he said, He was could see the object.  "It was a
spectacular light, wonderful," said Francisco.  Housewife Ema
Helena Schilick and her children, said that they also saw a
strange object in the sky.  Eunice Claudia and Ernane Emerson
were at the bus stop when the UFO appeared.  They said that it
was a round object, enormous, and moving very slow.  Four
tourists at the Parque Nacional das Emas tell the same story.
"This thing is a burning hot story," said the Revista UFO
editor, A.J. Gevaerd.  "We've received dozens of from all over
Latin America."  Gevaerd is going to Chapado do Sul to
investigate -- "I am going to interview some witnesses, because
usually when these sightings happen there are also abduction
cases."  There are also rumors that fighters were launched from
Anpolis Air Force Base, in Gois, to chase the UFO.  Thanks to
Thiago Ticchetti, thiagolt@opengate.com.br, (DEPTE - EBE-ET /
Brasilia-Brasil)

GIGANTIC UNITED KINGDOM CROP CIRCLE PICTOGRAM

EAST FIELD -- Stuart Dike and Andreas Mller 'and the
International Crop Circle Archive' report a huge crop circle has
been found near Alton Barnes, Wiltshire on the June 12, 1999.
The first formation closer to the hill is a staggering 700 feet
in length,  with a mixture of different styles from season's
past.  It is basically a combination of the very first
pictograms from the early nineties with different components
from the designs that stirred the world, back in those heady
days.  The formation is close to Knapp Hill, and has amazing
amount of different sections, including the famous Boxes, which
were seen on the very early formations, plus Key designs, and an
unusual Celtic Cross design placed in the central section of the
overall pattern. Images and a video shot by Peter Sorensen
copyright 1999, can be observed at the web site:

http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/1999/Eastfield/Eastfield99a.h
tml

Editor's Note:  The shear size of the pictograms provides
convincing evidence they were not made by human endeavors.
Seven hundred feet of intricate pictograms should prove once and
for all the reality of the phenomenon based on their complexity,
huge size and a possible message.  It would require dozens if
not hundreds to hoax a site this large and complex.  The logical
conclusion is that this pictogram crop circle was made by an
unknown intelligence.

AUSTRALIA

GRAFTON - The Keith Basterfield Network and Skywatch report a
total of six orange UFO's slowly flew over the Eastern Coast
heading northeast on Friday, June 11, 1999.  The first UFO was
seen at 6:50 PM, a second at 9:45 PM, following the same flight
path.  At 10:10 PM, another object approached from the southwest
also heading northeast.  An amazing sight occurred at 10:25 PM
as one by one, three orange UFO's emerged from behind a tree
line.  They slowly flew on the same flight path as the others.
The two leading objects were one slightly behind the other at
the same altitude.  The third was trailing 300 meters behind,
and about the same altitude of the first two.  Its altitude is
estimated at around 1,500 feet.  When the group was to the north
of my position, the center object appeared to almost stop.  The
leading object continued to move on alone, blinked a few times
then went out.  The trailing object then caught up and overtook
the stationary center UFO.  After it had passed, both UFOs began
slowly blinking on-and-off in perfect unison.  They then faded
out together.  While video taping the 10:10 PM sighting, a
'meteor' without a tail streaked through the field of view.  I
am not sure what it was, but it was very fast.  A total of 23
minutes of video was taken of these sightings.  Supposedly,
there was a news report of UFO activity on Prime TV.  Thanks to
Barry Taylor stingray@nor.com.au

http://www.nor.com.au/users/stingray

ESPERANCE, WEST AUSTRALIA -- Diane Harrison Australian Skywatch
Director reports that on June 9, 1999, Peter witnessed tons of
white filamentous threads falling from the sky over a 90
kilometer area.  Paddocks, hedges, trees were covered with the
stuff and it hung off power lines in great shrouds with lengths
up to thirty feet long.  Apparently the sky was thick with it up
to a thousand feet or more.  The threads fell for five hours
from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM.  All the paddocks in the area had a
'sheen' caused by layers of the stuff.  Peter picked up some of
the 'hair' to try to get it analyzed.  A Cessna aircraft was
flying at 200 feet through the falling threads.  Three contrails
were stationary much higher.  Channel 9 reported the 'Angel
Hair' was used in Yugoslavia to put out electrical power
generators.  We all know that was an unrelated carbon based
substance! Thanks to Australian UFO Research Network

RPIT ROSWELL REVISITATION REPORT #1

The primary purpose of this RPIT Report is to present the
findings of RPIT (Roswell Photo Interpretation Team) photo
analysts after five-months of intensive study of the Roswell
"flying  saucer" photos taken in the office of General Ramey on
July 8, 1947, and then to invite the assistance of Ufologists
who are willing to seriously address this question: "What can
all this evidence really mean toward  resolving the half century
old Riddle of Roswell?"  Even though the RPIT group at this
juncture is only presenting this evidence and offering no final
conclusions, it would appear that this may be the most
convincing close-up visual evidence of arrival of an ET
spacecraft on earth.

BACKGROUND: In May of 1998 Major George Filer, USAF-Ret., an
official in the MUFON organization and publisher of "Filer's
Files," contacted a fellow military retiree, Colonel James Bond
Johnson, USA-Ret., to voice a special concern.  Filer had been
phone visiting with the widow of Lt. Gen. Roger Ramey,
USAF-Ret., and she had expressed concerns over what she
described as unfair treatment of her late husband in connection
with his part in the Roswell Event of 1947.  At issue is whether
the general committed fraud upon the American people by
announcing during a special live radio broadcast that the object
first identified officially by the then Army Air Forces as a
"captured flying saucer" was in fact "only a weather balloon and
weather device."  A few writers had even accused the general of
"switching" the actual debris with fake junk prior to allowing a
member of the press to examine and photograph the purported
wreckage.  Johnson, who on the afternoon of July 8, 1947, had
taken a series of photos of General Ramey and two other officers
in the general's 8th Air Force HQ offices in Fort Worth, Texas,
for his newspaper, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, offered to
revisit the matter.  Johnson only recently had obtained an
enlargement of a photo of one of the officers, Major Jesse
Marcel, intelligence officer of the 509th Bombardment Group,
stationed at Roswell, NM.  Major Marcel had headed a recovery
team of the "flying saucer" wreckage from a ranch near Roswell
and had been ordered to courier the debris to General Ramey's
office for examination.  Marcel had just arrived in Fort Worth
by B-29 bomber and was photographed as the debris was being
unpacked from meat wrapper paper packages in Ramey's office.

The general was away from his office but expected to return
shortly.  Two unopened packages of debris lying in clear view,
Marcel's soiled flight uniform, scruffy field boots and his tie
and uniform cap tossed across a nearby radiator on a blazing
summer day in Texas point to a "fast breaking" and unresolved
situation.  Reporter-photographer Johnson had arrived
unexpectedly to provide the sole photo coverage of what has
proved to be the "Story of the Century!"  Johnson first assisted
with the debris unpacking and then "posed" Marcel with what
later was described by the major as some of the "less impressive
pieces" of the wreckage.  When General Ramey returned to his
office Johnson photographed him alone examining the pieces of
wreckage and then he was joined in other shots by Colonel Thomas
J. Dubose, Ramey's chief of staff.  Of special interest, the
general in each of the four pictures taken of him by Johnson is
holding a letter-size paper.  In the first two pictures the
general has the message folded but in the last two shots it is
unfolded and in a position to be read.  It has been speculated
that Ramey was handed an urgent message as he entered his office
and that if he first had read the message he never would have
permitted the photos to be made.  In support of this theory,
shortly after Johnson departed the Ramey office, the general
ordered his weather officer to report to his office and to
identify the debris as a "weather balloon and radar device."
Then, the general personally went to a Fort Worth radio station
that same night to make his dramatic announcement that "shot
down" the earlier official AAF "flying saucer" "capture" story.
And the Roswell debris NEVER has been seen since by any member
of the media during the next 51 years!  The five month study by
RPIT has been done in a completely "Sunshine" climate with
frequent updates being made to the UFO community and research
results being posted independently on their web pages by each
RPIT analyst.  All of these RPIT member web sites are linked to
the link page of James Bond Johnson.  None of the RPIT analysts
have sought any financial profit from their findings and also
they have borne their own expenses to date in advancing this
project.

INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS TAKEN: After the call from Filer, Johnson
first examined the Marcel photo he had obtained from the
University of Texas at Arlington Library, depository of four of
the original Ramey office photo negatives.  He noticed what
seemed to be never before noticed anomalous objects and symbols
in the debris.  He then contacted two members of the MUFON
Orange County to show them his findings and then placed on the
Internet an invitation for others to assist in "revisiting" the
Ramey office photos.  Selected as charter members of RPIT
(Roswell Photo Interpretation Team) were three volunteers from
the United States and two from the UK.  The Team has since been
augmented by other volunteers from Australia to the former USSR.
The only things the Team shares in common is an interest in
trying to solve the Riddle of Roswell; they all possess a
computer and the required software for photo analysis.  The team
members at the beginning of the project were mostly skeptics
regarding any ET connection to the Roswell Event.  RPIT members
independently obtained enlargements of the Ramey office photos
directly from UTA and began their investigations under
coordination by Ronald Regher, Los Angeles area aerospace
satellite engineer and MUFON Orange County associate director.
Initial Team findings concluded that none of the several Air
Force explanations as to the details of the Roswell Event could
have been accurate.  The Air Force had claimed recently that the
Roswell "UFO" was "likely" an experimental Mogul balloon train.
RPIT has determined that:  I. There was NO Mogul launch that
reasonably could have produced the  kinds of debris seen in the
Ramey office photos.  II.  The Ramey office photos contain NONE
of the items that would have been found in the wreckage of a
Mogul balloon train: sheets of plain aluminum foil with balsa
wood stick frames and all held together by several hundred feet
of string; this all was then lifted by inflated helium filled
neoprene balloons.  Neither the instructions in English included
with each Mogul balloon train nor any other English writings --
or any other known language writings -- are to be found in the
Ramey office photos.  III.  The RPIT initial discoveries also
included: �(A) foil like material that is covered by organized
symbols or glyphs such as would be utilized in "writings."  The
symbols are described as similar to ancient Egyptian glyphs but
have not yet been deciphered. Some symbols are found
repetitively in various parts of the photos, which would
virtually  eliminate the "chance" factor; �(B) beams which have
very prominent  organized symbols or glyphs embossed in bas
relief along several beams  in the wreckage; �(C) The beams
appear to be hollow and fabricated from  some type of possibly
ceramic material -- but NOT balsa wood as used in  a Mogul
train! -- which has been formed and drilled in several places;
and, �(D) Numerous other anomalous objects that would NOT be
found in a Mogul train or any other weather balloon or Rawin
device.  Please forward suggestions to: Ronald Regehr,
Coordinator, Marilyn Ruben, Analyst  MJ Ruben@aol.com, Neil
Morris, Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk, Ben Field,
Ben@abcfield.force9.co.uk.  Thanks to James Bond Johnson, RPIT's
Project Director  JBONJO@aol.com

CONFERENCE: July 2-4, 30th Annual MUFON 1999 International UFO
Symposium at Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel in Arlington
Virginia.  E-mail mufonhq@aol.com

TAPE OF EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE UFO ENCOUNTER

Lunar Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell was at Edwards the night the
UFO chase occurred.  The 6th person to walk on the moon said,
"The night it happened I investigated it myself and this was a
real event."  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 in an important part of UFO
history.  Hear it for yourself, its the best UFO tape ever made
and its record of a real event.  The cost of the tape is $14.95
each plus $2.00 for shipping -- total $16.95 -- you can send
either a personal check or money order to: Independent
International Films, Box 565, Dept.  GF, Old Bridge, New Jersey
08857.

MUFON JOURNAL For more detailed investigative reports subscribe
by writing to 103 Oldtowne Road, Sequin, TX 78155-4099 or E-mail
Mufon@aol.com.  Filer's Files Copyright 1998 by George A. Filer,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post items from the Files on
their Websites provided that they credit the newsletter and its
editor by name and list the date of issue that the item
appeared.  Send your letters to me at Majorstar@aol.com.  If you
wish to keep your name confidential please so state.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                                Cashman & IUR

From: Bill Weber <koran@cchat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:02:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:11:11 -0400
Subject: Cashman & IUR


Hi, all,

I just received the new edition of IUR and for the life of me
can't understand why I hadn't subscribed earlier.  For those
desiring the best attempt at a scholarly publication (and one
done without a leading University research budget) IUR fits the
bill.  This is legitimate, ground-breaking, first-class stuff.

Anyone who publicly laments the lack of thoughtful, credible UFO
research isn't reading IUR.  (It was certainly well worth my 25
bucks.)

And while I'm raving about the publication, I'd also like to
rave about Mark Cashman.

Over, around and through the hysterics, name calling and
character assassination by those claiming to be devoted to UFO
research, Cashman has been quietly, and sometimes not so
quietly, churning out the best stuff on the planet.

His recent, "Behavioral classification system for UFO occupants"
is a thoughtful and sincere effort that lays some important
groundwork for further study.  I congratulate Mark Cashman and
those involved in the publication of IUR.

Sincerely,

Bill Weber







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                    Re: 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary?

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:06:45 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:16:56 -0400
Subject: Re: 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary?


Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:35:47
To: updates@globalserve.net
From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Subject: 24 November 1989, Papa, Hungary?

>Hi All,

>Does anyone have any more information on the following sighting?


<snip>

Hi Roy,

Below is a reproduction of an article I clipped and saved from a
November 27, 1989 Canadian newspaper (The Ottawa Citizen?).
This article includes the name of one of the Hungarian
meterologists which should make it easier to get more
information.

Papa is located between Vienna and Budapest, south of Gyor and
north of Lake Balaton (a popular place for vacationing
Hungarians which I visited in the early in 1980s while working
overseas as an astronomy/meteorology observer/technician).

Nick Balaskas

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

Hungarians track orange UFOs

BUDAPEST (Reuter) - Only weeks after reports of little green
spacemen in Hungary, Meteorologists said they have sighted four
large, bright-orange unidentified flying objects.

Meterologist Gyula Bazso said Sunday the objects were spherical
and 50 to 100 metres wide.  He said one flew at a speed of 4,200
kilometres and hour.

Speaking from a meteorological station in Papa, western Hungary,
Barso said he and colleagues elsewhere in Hungary spotted strange
lights close to the Great Bear constellation late Friday night.

Bazso said he contacted the local military airbase which sent up
an experienced pilot who located four objects at an altitude of
6.400 metres.  All the UFOs, which he said were bright-orange,
disappeared suddenly.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

              Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:48:42 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:18:34 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell


>From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:33:16 EDT
>Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:50:24 -0400
>Subject: Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell

<snip>

>As matters now stand regarding 'The Glenn Dennis Story', based
>upon the investigations of many people over many years, his
>story must be rejected on the basis of a known lie [i.e., he
>knowingly supplied investigators with a false name for "the
>nurse"].

I've always wondered about that.  Did Naomi Selff really mean
Name, Myself, or perhaps No Name, Myself?

Hmm.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:47:43 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:36:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:35:26 -0400
>Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:32:49 -0400
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:52:03 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>Try whipping your cowling tool out of your pocket (while in
>>flight) and making two comparisons with two distant objects in
>>two different directions while manually rolling down your left
>>window and turning your "trimmed" plane south, and then tell me
>>if you can do all the above in a 1947 airplane within two
>>minutes' time or less. I don't think so.

>There are a number of unwarranted assumptions in this.

>1) That the cowling tool was difficult to access. But it is not
>a pipe wrench. It is more a thing the size of a pen and was
>probably carried in his shirt pocket. Thus it is easy to access
>within a fraction of a second. The comparison, likewise, would
>probably take under two seconds between the objects and the DC4.
>Try it at home.


Well, we're a long way from Mogul parchment parachutes.

I just want to add one further point to Mark's excellent reply.
Arnold reported the DC4 was visible to his north, enroute to
Seattle.  He spotted it at the _beginning_ of his sighting while
he was looking around for aircraft in his vicinity that might
explain the flashes of light.

Arnold was headed east at the time.  The unknown objects were
easterly or northeasterly.  So Arnold would have seen the DC4 to
his left out the pilot's side window and the unknowns either
through his side window or left windshield.

Therefore, Arnold obviously would have made any size comparison
with his cowling tool BEFORE he turned right and headed south.
Once he began his turn he would lose sight of the DC4 to his
left.  After his turn, it would be in back of him.

From other parts of Arnold's report, it seems he observed these
objects for a good minute or more before turning.  It certainly
was not a case where Arnold was trying to do everything at once
while turning the plane.

Furthermore, since the DC4 and objects were initially both
leftish of Arnold, it wouldn't take much shifting of the tool
and Arnold's head to sight one and then the other to make a
comparison.  It could have been done relatively quickly.  How
accurately is another matter.

Such points would be blatantly obvious if the skeptics here
would learn how to read and apply a little simple logic.  What I
see instead is a lot of intellectual sloth, stupidity, and
dishonesty, and/or typical kneejerk naysaying just for the hell
of it.

More skeptical hay could be gathered by _intelligently_
questioning the accuracy of Arnold's size comparison or his
estimate of DC4 distance.  I can see Arnold conceivably being
off by a factor of 2 to 1 one way or the other in estimating
relative angular size.  It would have been a difficult detection
task.  Arnold would have been close to the limits of visual
acuity and would  have had to deal with other factors like
engine vibration and rapid object motion.  So it was a rough
comparison, sort of like holding out a finger at arms length to
try to gauge the angular size of something in the distance.
That at least allows you to bracket the size with reasonable
estimates of possible error.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                      Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:22:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:45:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 21:16:10 PDT>

>Listfolk:

>Recently we have read charges on this list that Budd Hopkins
>hypnotizes children while pursuing research into UFO-abduction
>reports.  I have had deep doubts about this very serious
>allegation, which runs contrary to everything I know and have
>observed about Budd's ethics, judgment, and sensitivity to
>others.

>As some of you are aware, Budd does not have e-mail.  I have,
>however, just heard from my friend David M. Jacobs, who does.
>Even more astonished than I to read these fantastic claims, he
>phoned Budd to ask about them. Jacobs informs me -- not
>surprisingly, to those of us who know Budd -- that Hopkins has
>_never_ conducted hypnosis with children. Nor, for that matter,
>has Jacobs.

>In other words, we've been at the receiving end of the Big Lie.
>Those who have passed it on, innocently if recklessly, owe Budd
>Hopkins an apology. Those who knew or suspected it was a lie but
>circulated it anyway are beyond redemption.  The former are
>urged, in the name of common decency, to apologize publicly.
>This list would be a good place to do it.

>Jerry Clark


Thank you for this, Jerry. I was going to post much the same
thing, though not with the strength you brought to the matter.

Of course people who disagree with Budd's conclusions are free to
criticize his work. So are people who agree with him.

But much of what has been posted here is simply irresponsible --
as irresponsible, in fact, as Budd himself has been alleged to
be. Apart from this nonsense about Budd hypnotizing children, I
have yet to see a critique of Budd's use of hypnosis that (1)
mentions Budd's reasons for believing some of the information he
gets is accurate, along with techniques he uses to verify its
accuracy, and (2) takes into account the full discussion among
psychologists about hypnosis, nicely summarized in Stewart
Appelle's paper on the abduction evidence, in the 1996 issue of
JUFOS. (I quoted a large chunk of it here once; surely it's in
the UpDates archives.)

I've stayed out of the discussion up to now, due to other
committments, but I had to add my voice to Jerry's.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                     NASA Demonstrates A More Open Forum

From: Mitch Battros <earthcng@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 08:33:15 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:52:22 -0400
Subject: NASA Demonstrates A More Open Forum


NASA Demonstrates A More Open Forum...06/18/99
by Mitch Battros (ECTV)

I am very pleased with what appears to be NASA's willingness to
discuss more openly with myself and others, real life issues
that affect us all. This is truly the better way. It is much
more effective to allow an open forum where NASA can layout
there assessments as well as those in the paranormal  who make
predictions. I believe this will help minimize the sometimes
outlandish predictions made on the internet. At the same time,
this forum lets NASA put on the record for all of us to see,
what their data shows. When this is done, the track record will
speak for itself.

A perfect example of the this new forum is "Comet Lee".
Scientists with the "Millennium Group" are worried that Comet
Lee at the very least, may cause solar explosions (CMEs) in our
solar system, earthquakes, and hurricane - like weather on
Earth.  At the worst, well, Shoemaker- Levy's comet fragments
crashing into Jupiter could be a pictorial warning for Earth if
Comet Lee is captured in Earth-moon orbit.

Charles S. Morris, JPL Astronomer, wrote to me after I had
posted my article on this matter. He has outlined his assessment
as follows.

* Comet Lee's orbit is not erratic. It is well-known. The comet
will not hit the Earth or come any place close to it. The
closest it will come to the Earth is about 77 million miles (the
Sun is 93 million miles from Earth) at the end of September
1999. An orbital diagram is posted below...see for yourself.

* Comet Lee (or any comet) will not cause coronal mass
ejections. And Comet Lee's orbit is not affected by them.

* The comet is not expected to become bright. It is not
abnormally bright nor is it brightening at an unusual rate. In
fact, it is not expected to become a naked-eye object. It is
currently near its peak brightness.

Now this is the type of discovery protocol that has been
missing. On NASA's part, they had become untrusting in the eyes
of the public. They had also been to dismissive of those in the
esoteric sciences, which led to even more suspicion of NASA
being untruthful. On the other hand, those in the esoteric
sciences had let too many of their colleagues get away with
ridiculous predictions and frivolous analysis, perhaps leaving
NASA to shake it's head with bewilderment.

Mr. Charles Morris of  JPL and Mr. Craig DeForest of SOHO, I
thank you for coming forward and responding to my articles in
the way you have. I am hopeful we can continue this new way of
correspondence. I believe it will be when both sides put forth
their data in a respectable manner, that the truth will unfold.

As an old professor of mine once told me. "It is all in the
track record".


Mitch Battros
Producer - Earth Changes TV
http://www.earthchangesTV.com

NASA Discloses Space Station Botch...06/18/99

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Flight controllers botched an
attempt to move the new international space station out of the
way of a speeding piece of space junk, but the rocket debris
ended up passing at a safe distance. The incident was disclosed
by NASA Thursday. NASA said the sequence of computer commands
sent up by flight controllers to fire the station's engines
failed because of human error. Initially, the U.S. military
organization that tracks objects in space predicted the rocket
chunk would pass within two-thirds of a mile of the space
station Sunday. It ended up coming no closer than four miles. If
the rocket debris had collided with the space station, it could
have destroyed the empty outpost, which has been in orbit for
seven months.

Yes NASA, we all just human when you get down to it. Now I want
to know how you will handle asteroids and meteror showers?
Just asking  :-}

Best Wishes, MB





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                      Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 20:56:31 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:55:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 21:16:10 PDT

>Listfolk:

>Recently we have read charges on this list that Budd Hopkins
>hypnotizes children while pursuing research into UFO-abduction
>reports.  I have had deep doubts about this very serious
>allegation, which runs contrary to everything I know and have
>observed about Budd's ethics, judgment, and sensitivity to
>others.

>As some of you are aware, Budd does not have e-mail.  I have,
>however, just heard from my friend David M. Jacobs, who does.
>Even more astonished than I to read these fantastic claims, he
>phoned Budd to ask about them. Jacobs informs me -- not
>surprisingly, to those of us who know Budd -- that Hopkins has
>_never_ conducted hypnosis with children. Nor, for that matter,
>has Jacobs.

>In other words, we've been at the receiving end of the Big Lie.
>Those who have passed it on, innocently if recklessly, owe Budd
>Hopkins an apology. Those who knew or suspected it was a lie but
>circulated it anyway are beyond redemption.  The former are
>urged, in the name of common decency, to apologize publicly.
>This list would be a good place to do it.

>Jerry Clark

Hi,

I don't know where the Budd does hypnosis on children story
began. But like Peter Brookesmith I was at the l993 Sheffield
where Budd lectured and I got the same impression he says that
he did from Budd's presentation there. Indeed, I was actually
interviewed about this very point by a BBC radio programme that
was at the conference and interviewed many of the speakers and
audience. They clearly picked up on the same misunderstanding so
it must have been widespread.

I recall at MIT how Budd was showing the way he worked with
children - using identikit pictures of clowns, aliens, etc mixed
together. So i knew he worked with young children. Perhaps the
misunderstanding came from that given that he uses hypnosis as
part of his normal methodology. But it was also certainly
stimulated on whatever he said in his Sheffield lecture. Perhaps
the organisers (some are on this list) have a transcript of the
talk and we can figure out why this impression was given.

In any case, as I have said repeatedly, I have no personal
doubts at all about Budd's sincerity and compassion for his
witnesses. I have seen it at work and utterly respect him for
it. My concerns are over hypnosis, regardless of the age of the
witness. But I unreservedly apologise to Budd as suggested since
I was certainly one of those under the impression Budd did use
regression with children and I am delighted to know this is not
the case.

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:27:31 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:05:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 19:58:05 PDT

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:37:44 +0100

>Jenny,

>>But there is a broader issue -  if hypnosis has a long term
>>detrimental effect on ufology. I am absolutely certain the
>>latter is the case. Why? Not some arbitrary guesstimate thats
>>for sure. I base my conclusion on three things.

>>3:  Because I have personally been regressed on several
>>occasions and therefore seen it unfold first hand. I know how
>>tempting it is to see images and presume their reality status.
>>My UFO encounter consisted of 50% stuff I could check and 50%
>>stuff I never could. The stuff I could check was as much fantasy
>>as actual memory. I wrongky reported basic facts in the order of
>>the day of the week, etc. With such a track record it would
>>obviously be foolish to base opinions on ufology on the
>>uncheckable data that emerges via hypnosis because this test
>>proves to me that a good portion of it is certain to be fantasy
>>and possibly all of it is.

>Isn't yours what might be called, uh, anecdotal testimony? And
>didn't your experience confirm pretty much what you thought
>anyway?  I don't say this disrespectfully -- as you know, I have
>immense respect for you -- but I'm simply pointing out that the
>argument you make here is effectively meaningless.

>>I know the counter argument. Ufologists do not rely on hypnosis
>>testimony as the judge of truth. If a case matches another case
>>then this proves hypnosis has contributed to the quest for
>>knowkedge. Sadly not.

>I think you've overstated the argument, no doubt for rhetorical
>effect. I would urge you to read, or reread, Eddie Bullard's
>important paper on the apparent irrelevance of hypnosis to the
>content of abduction narratives.  I don't know anybody we'd
>respect who'd be so incautious as to say this "_proves_ hypnosis
>has contributed to the quest for knowledge," but it does suggest
>that things are not simple and that the usual anti-hypnosis
>arguments are not entirely compelling and appear (so far anyway)
>empirically undemonstrated. Which is not to say, of course, that
>hypnosis should be used carelessly or thoughtlessly. We all
>prefer cases without it.  It doesn't follow -- as the Hill case
>tells us -- that cases with it are ipso facto without merit.

>>But, back to hypnosis. The problems with it clearly tell you
>>that hypnosis is not the way to access this fundamental reality
>>- just to read peoples dreams and fantasies. These may well be
>>based on a fundamental reality

>Statements like these betray an unhelpful bias. I know at least
>three abductees on this list -- eminently sane, thoughtful,
>anything but crazy or suggestable -- who, I am sure, would
>resent your suggestion that their experiences are mere "dreams
>and fantasies." (How can they be, by the way,  "dreams and
>fantasies" and yet "a fundamental reality?")  I think it would
>behoove us, when we discuss matters about which much remains
>unclear, to use neutral words like "narratives" to characterize
>abduction accounts, unless we have clear and specific reason to
>identify them as "dreams and fantasies" (or, for that matter,
>interactions with aliens).

>>As you know we had a proper debate in UK Ufology - such as has
>>never occurred in the US -

>You're wrong. The use of hypnosis in UFO investigations has been
>a subject of considerable debate here for many years, and it has
>produced a considerable paper trail.  It seems to me what you're
>saying is that unless such a debate leads to a conclusion you
>agree with, it hasn't happened.  In fact, at least from our
>perspective,  the data bearing on the answer are sufficiently
>ambiguous to persuade many of us that the discussion should
>continue before possibly premature conclusions are reached.  We
>may be right or wrong to feel that way, but ours is a perfectly
>respectable position.  A sweeping statement such as the one you
>make here is not only false but unfair.
>
>>I only wish that more if you understood why we chose this
>>option. Because Dennis is absolutely right. The day when a
>>genuine researcher gets into serious legal difficulties as a
>>result of hypnotic regression is a racing certainty. It may not
>>be Budd. It could be anyone. But it will happen and, I'm afraid,
>>UFOlogy will be rightly hauled over the coals by the media for
>>allowing it to get that far.

>And ufology hasn't been hauled over the coals repeatedly
>already?  It's naive to think that if ufologists behave
>perfectly, journalists (not to mention scientists) will
>automatically treat them with respect.  Fifty years of history
>tells us that ufologists of all stripes, good,  bad, and
>indifferent, get ridiculed pretty much indiscriminately.  There
>are all kinds of good reasons for ufologists to conduct
>themselves with sanity and discipline.  The expectation that
>when we do, the press and scientists will pat us on our
>collective head is not one of them.

>Jerry Clark

Hi,

Thanks for all this. Firstly, let me clrify a few things. I do
not for one moment suggest that the abductees on this list have
been experiencing only dreams and fantasies. I know it is more
than that.

What I did say, or at least did mean, was that hypnosis opens up
ther mind to dreams and fantasies and these have provably
intruded into the context of several abductions I have
witnessed. In the end the bits that were real and the bits that
were dreams were all mixed together and virtually inseparable. I
dont see how that helps an already confusing issue like
abductions.

I have read Eddie Bullard on the lack of major differences
between hypnosis-induced and non-induced testimony. Indeed it was
part of my point. Because of that fact hypnotic regression is
not actually necessary. If something adds confusion and is not
necessary to our work and at least according to some doctors is
potentially hazardous then that all adds up to me to pretty good
reasons to oppose it.

Jerry, I think you do my an injustice to suppose that I am not
perceiving a debate on hyonotic regression because the US did
not produce the same outcome. I am perfectly happy to live with
different points of view. But I have not seen an open debate and
vote takem amongst the UFO investigation team of, say, MUFON. If
I've missed it, fair enough. But I dont recall discussion in
MUFON Journal or IUN on such a vote. Thats the difference in the
UK - the investigation team (not me) called for the debate and
voted (about 95% in favour as I recall) and have renewed that
decision recently long after I quit as head of the investigation
team. So it is a widespread feeling here.

Actually I am not opposed to hypnosis under properly controlled
conditions and with full witness approval. By contol the code of
practice here absolutely demands a medically qualified person
doing the job - and I am not sure that always applies in the US.
But I have, for instance, sat in on some of the sessions that
Peter Hough and Dr Moyshe Kalman did for their recent book on
abductions. Peter and I have also done regression work (again
with Dr Kalman) regressing NDE witnesses in a non UFO study. So
I am not a killjoy.

You are probably right about the bias of the work in which I was
regressed. But the UFO test was just one of a series (others
involved regression to a past life, experiments on this with
other witnesses that I then investigated to check accuracy of
hard facts that were checkable). The evidence of ufologist Mike
Wootten who did a similar test via a different psychologist is
closely akin to mine and Mike is married to one of the UK's best
alien contact witnesses so I doubt he was predisposed against.

I am absolutely in agreement that this is a complex issue and
has no simple answers. Quick replies on the net often create the
impression that we see things simplistically and I don't. Read my
book 'Star Children' if anyone out there doubts that I am fully
aware that something mighty odd is going on and that alien
contact is probably a part of it. I am not concerned about
hypnosis as a defence mechanism to rid the world of aliens. I
know it wouldn't.

It is good that we are seriously debating this. It is equally
good that different approaches occur in different UFO
communities. Provided, of course, that we learn from the
experience of one another. And, yes, Jerry I do appreciate that
cuts both ways. This is why the ban on hypnosis was not open
ended and I insisted on a five yearl review. It is not
inconceivable hypnosis will be bavk on the agenda here one day.

As for Ufology being hauled over the coals, my point is not
general criticism or ill-informed bad mouthing or failure to see
the real evidence. Hypnosis is different. It potentilly can have
long term detrimental effects on a person and I know at least
one UK witness who came to BUFORA, requested hypnosis, was
turned down because of the ban and went elsewhere to have
hypnosis that left him very distressed and uncertain as to
whether he had brainwashed.

In another case a witness asked for hypnosis, was again turned
down and came back a year later saying 'thank you' for not
regressing me as events since have revealed the medical cause of
my experiences and i would not have found them if I had worked
with ufologists to seek an abduction memory.

More anecdotes, yes I know. But they are enough to make me
worry. For I can see the day when some person, perhaps without
any reasonable justification, will blame later trauma on the
regression and abduction recall brought to the surface which
they now feel to be untrue. As such they might convince people
they have a case against the UFO community. Hypothetical - yes,
it is. But improbable? I really dont think it is. ufology needs
to think ahead to what will happen when that day comes.

To me it comes down to one thing - what is the best thing to do
for a witness. Is it helping them to 'remember' the alien
trauma? Even some who honestly want that now may change their
mind afterwards. And can we really say that we act for the
witnesses as much as we act for our own selfish desires to find
out the truth - something hypnosis seems to make it so much
easier to do?

The UK Code of Practice makes it illegal for us to put our
interests ahead of what we honestly consider the interests of
the witness. This is always a personal choice but it is a
choice that needs to be made and not merely accepted as the way
we do things.

Best wishes,

Jenny






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:10:02 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:13:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:22:28 EDT
>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:02:23 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

>>I've only met and spoken to Mr Hopkins once.

>>I have my problems with some of his work, but I think it is best
>>to frame such objections dispassionately and with careful
>>attention to what is attainable in this field.

>Too often we resort to name calling and ignore dispassionate
>discourse.

>>I am currently at work on a critique of the problems I see in
>>abduction research, and I will do my best to address those
>>problems without reference to personalities. That's how science
>>should be done.

>I have just had my critique of the abduction research published
>by TOR (St. Martins), written with Russ Estes and Bill Cone.

>KRandle, Ph.D.*

>Yes, I have now received my degree in psychology.

<snip>

Sincere congratulations to Kevin..

A difficult and significant achievement while writing and
researching.

Any place to buy an autographed copy of the book?

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                          Blather: On The Ghost Bus

From: Daev Walsh - Blather <daev@blather.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:36:07 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:20:07 -0400
Subject: Blather: On The Ghost Bus

______________________________________________________
B  L  A  T  H  E  R

p a r a n o r m a l   p r o v o c a t e u r i s m

By Dave (daev) Walsh daev@blather.net
Web: http://www.blather.net
_______________________________________________________
June 18th 01999, Dublin, Ireland   Vol 3. No. 2
_______________________________________________________

Lily O'Briens is a manufacturer of premium handmade chocolates
located in the heart of County Kildare in the Emerald Green
Island of Ireland. Surf along to their website and feast your
eyes - and order via our secure server!

http://www.lilyobriens.ie/
______________________________________________________


Contents This Issue:

On the Ghost Bus: Blather takes a Bus to Hell

Owlman Plea: Jon Downes seeks a philanthropist

Bleedin' Errata!: Careless, us?

Magonia: Latest new from the Magonia website

Octocon X: The Tenth National Irish Science Fiction Convention,
                                      featuring Blather's daev.
_____________________________________________________

ON THE GHOST BUS
At 19:30 hours on the 25th of May, this Blatherskite ended a
headlong bicycle sprint across Dublin's humid inner city,
arriving at O'Connell St. with barely enough time to leap aboard
the Dublin Ghost Bus and wave his credentials, before the
spectral vehicle lurched away into the evening.

Operated by Dublin Bus, the city's public transport company, the
double-decker Ghost Bus cuts a curious jib as it trundles about
the backstreets in its livery of blues, purples and black, with
darkened or curtained windows.

Inside the bus, the driver and assistant are dressed in normal
Dublin Bus uniforms, but the decor is dark and decorated with
prints of the Irish Hell-Fire Club and Bram Stoker. Upstairs -
where the punters sit - is adorned with red velvet curtains and
paintwork that seems to unconsciously suggest that 'Molly' - as
the bus is known - is more flesh and blood that we would expect.

As we edge slowly through the evening traffic towards the River
Liffey, we are joined by James, our guide for the evening,
dressed in an immaculate high-collared white shirt, cravat and
waistcoat. James introduces the rest of the crew: the driver,
'Francis "Blood-on-the-tyres" Schumacher', 'Blind Igor, the
Phibsboro Psychopath', and of course, Molly herself.

As we cross O'Connell Bridge, we pull back the curtains - it
seems far too bright and sunny to be on a ghost tour - to learn
about the strange apparition that appeared by a floating
restaurant - the MV Aran, which used to be moored by the Customs
House back in the 1980s.

[Live view of O'Connell Bridge:
http://www.ireland.com/dublin/liveview/index.htm]

[See also:
http://www.archeire.com/archdublin/bridges/oconnell.html]

As we wheel up D'Olier St., passed the offices of the Irish
Times, James reels off a list of famous writers who had studied
in the approaching Trinity College - including, of course, Bram
Stoker, author 'Dracula'. We learn of the year of Stoker's birth
- 1847, or 'Black 47' - the worst year of the Irish Famine, his
sickly childhood and Ballybock Cemetery, his habitual play
place.

[Trinity College Dublin:
http://www.archeire.com/archdublin/trinity/trinmain.htm]


By now we're were on Nassau St. and turning up Kildare St.,
having patrolled a good half of Trinity's perimeter, and
stopping off at the College of Physicians. Here we glimpse the
beginning of a major topic of tonight's proceedings: Body
Snatching. It was at this College that a Dr. Samuel Clossey
operated his school of anatomy, apparently between 1786 and
1803. A 'tall, mean, overbearing' individual, he seems to have
eschewed the frivolities of religion and emotion, to
(paradoxically) revel in the delights of shocking his students -
slicing up bodies to show that we are little more than meat.
Clossey himself met a rather unsavoury end, thanks to his
miserliness and bloodthirstiness. We won't give away the story
here...

[Oddly, my copy of Dr. John Fleetwood's 'The Irish Body
Snatchers

(1988) makes no mention of Dr. Clossey...]

Up Kildare St. a little further, and we pass by Leinster House -
where the Dil (Irish Parliament) can be found, and the National
Museum. On the other side of the street from these public
buildings is a row of fairly ordinary looking Georgian houses -
one of which was the residence of Bram Stoker. Next we pass the
Shelbourne Hotel, where, in 1910, in room 256, 'psychic' Sybil
Leek allegedly contacted the ghost of one 'Mary Masters' in
August 1965. Mary claimed to have popped her cogs in 1791 due to
cholera. Apparently Leek's mother's maiden name was also
Masters, and a row of Georgian houses was demolished to build
the hotel, back in 1824.

Hans Holzer, in his book 'The Lively Ghosts of Ireland' mentions
this case - Sybil Leek was a friend of his. We're sure James
said the room was 256, however Holzer says 526, and well, as he
was 'there' at the time, it's hard to argue with that.


[Leinster House:

http://www.archeire.com/archdublin/18thc/leinster.htm]

[Shelbourne Hotel:

http://www.shelbourne.ie/]


Then it's down Merrion Row, swinging a right onto Ely Place,
where many of Dublin's rich lived - Oliver St. John Gogarty,
Bram Stoker's brother Thornley, George Moore and John 'Black
Jack' Fitzgibbon, the Earl of Clare (1746-1802), who lived in
No. 6. He is infamously reported to have hung 13 people in one
day (for the sheer hell of it), stating that he would make the
Irish as 'tame as castrated cats'. Oddly, he himself was
castrated in later years during an altercation in a Turkish
brothel. He survived this setback, and died, much later on.
Apparently multitudes of commoners carrying sacks joined his
funeral cortege - curious, for such an unpopular man. At his
graveside the contents of the sacks were thrown onto his coffin
- dozens of dead cats, in varying stages of decay.

The bus turns back onto Stephen's Green, heading up the Monk's
walk, while James starts ramming a hatpin through a doll wearing
a letter 'F', while Francis, the driver, starts screaming below.
The 'passengers' are also given a go - some are more
'passionate' about stabbing than others, it seems. This leads
into stories of how a Blacksmith's 1798 curse lead to the death
of the 7ft (2.13m) tall Lieutenant Hempenstall, a.k.a. 'The
Walking Gallows', who could hang a man with his silk cravat.
According to Peter Somerville-Large's 'Irish Eccentrics', some
wit dedicated two lines of verse to the Lieutenant's demise:

'Here lies the bones of Hempenstall,
Judge, jury, gallows, rope and all.'

Before we know it, we're out of the bus and creeping down Long
Lane, with James in his overcoat and trilby, carrying a bag of
tools and swinging an umbrella. Into St. Kevin's Park with us,
formerly St. Kevin's 'Cemetery'... where members of the Thomas
Moore family, the poet, are buried. To the rather startled
bemusement of some of our number, our guide demonstrates - using
tools and gestures - the practice of body-snatching - whether it
was of full bodies for sale to the medical community or merely
the removal of teeth and hair from the corpses of cholera
victims. We were shown how the corpse would be impaled under the
chin and pulled from the grave, and a box of human teeth was
passed around, to the consternation of several people...

St. Kevin's seems alive with stories - George 'Crazy Crow'
Hendrick, an 18th century day-time 'porter of musical
instruments' and night-time 'sack-em-up', practiced his
snatching skills at St. Kevin's, some of which allegedly led to
the entrapment of some of his colleagues in a mausoleum. Dr.
Fleetwood book 'The Irish Body Snatchers', however, tells us
that Hendrick only became a musical instrument porter in 1832,
when the passing of the Anatomy Act killed the body snatching
business.


The ivy-laded church ruins, in the centre of the park,
apparently house the ghost of Bishop Dermot O'Hurley, executed
in Penal Times. High season for bishopric apparitions is said to
be 'late July'. Arthur Wellesley, better know as the Duke of
Wellington, was baptised

in the tiny church.

We pile back onto the bus, and head over to St. Patrick's
Cathedral, while James manages to horrify some passengers with
readings from Jonathan Swift's (author of 'Gulliver's Travels',
and Dean of St. Patrick's in the 18th century) infamous
political satire 'A Modest Proposal - For Preventing The
Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being Aburden to Their
Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The
Public'. Swift himself is buried beneath the floor of the
medieval building, and although our guide doesn't mention it,
the Dean is said to appear in various locations around Ireland
to this day...

[A Modest Proposal
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html]


We hook into New St., where we notice that the adjacent school
was established in 1432. So far, the stories have seemed well
researched, and acknowledgement has been made of those which are
more apocryphal. However, the most dubious tale yet is of an
almost premature burial 'inside' St. Patrick's featuring a lady
who apparently suffered a cataleptic fit.

She was revived when one of the funeral attendants attempted to
divest her of her wedding ring - and her finger with it. She is
said to have run home from the church, wondering what she was
doing there, bleeding from her wound, and subsequently lived for
32 years. Unfortunately, this seems to be one of those
archetypal tales which insists on showing up again and again.
The first time this writer heard of it was about 15 years ago in
Wexford, this time it referred to the apparent demise of the
matriarch of a local estate, and her resurrection at the hands
of a terrified grave robber.


[St. Patrick's:
http://www.archeire.com/archdublin/17thc/stpats.htm]

Next to St. Patrick's is Marshe's Library, assembled by Bishop
Narcissus Marshe in the 17th century. The tour doesn't enter here, but
if we may digress, this place is always worth a visit, as they have
regular topical exhibitions of selected works - a couple of years ago
they had a showing of publications relating to 'mythical' animals -
but when these books were published, such creatures were though to be
real. They also have a first edition of 'Gulliver's Travels'...

The Bishop's ghost is said to haunt the library, eternally searching
for the note left for him, hidden inside a book by his niece, who he
had reared from childhood. She eloped with a seaman, and left Marshe
heartbroken...

[Marshes's Library:
http://www.archeire.com/archdublin/18thc/marsh.htm]

The bus heads up Patrick's St., under the arch at Christchurch
cathedral, and pulling in at the top of Winetavern St. to hear tales
of 'Hell', the jungle of sin which stretched along the side of the
hill from Christchurch to St. Audeons. Apparently there exists an 18th
century newspaper notice, advertising:

'To Rent: Rooms in Hell. Lawyers Preferred'.



[Christchurch Cathedral:
http://www.archeire.com/archdublin/17thc/christch.htm]

On the southern end of Hell, over on Fishamble St., a new pub
called 'Darky Kelly's' can be seen. Kelly was an 18th century
'madame' who kept a house known as 'The Maiden Tower' in the
building in which the pub now resides. It was said to be
'notably labyrinthine' by officers of the law who once raided
the place, probably because they spent so much time there before
leaving...

Darky Kelly was executed, for the alleged murder of her child,
the body of whom was never actually produced. Her prosecutor?
One Simon Luttrell, Sheriff of Dublin, alleged Hell-Fire Club
member, and reportedly the father of the child...

We roll downhill, and around the corner onto Cooke St. On our
right is the rear of 'Adam and Eve's' church, which faces onto
Merchant's Quay. In Penal times, when Catholic mass was
outlawed, there used to be a tavern on the site called... 'Adam
and Eve's'. This pub had a small church hidden inside it, where
illicit worship was carried out - think of it as alcohol
prohibition in reverse. Consider it... people going out under
the auspices of drinking, but instead 'really' going to

mass. For Joyce fans, 'Adam and Eve's is mentioned on the first
page of 'Finnegans Wake', albeit the other way around.

'riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of
bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to
Howth Castle and Environs.'

The bus stops off again by the north-facing gate of the city
walls, dating back to 1240AD. James unlocks the gate, and we
crowd in, and up the 'Forty Steps'. Here we hear tales of nuns
making reports to the Gardai in 1955, following their encounters
with leper ghosts, and mysterious green ladies, thought to be
Darky Kelly bringing her unwanted offspring to St. Audeon's
church. Fine frightening environs for dusktime tales...

[St. Audeon's:
http://www.archeire.com/archdublin/17thc/staudeon.htm]

[City Walls:
http://www.archeire.com/archdublin/17thc/citywall.htm]

The remainder of the tour brings us around Smithfield, on the
north side of the Liffey, where we hear tales of 'Billy the
Bowl' - the legless murderer of Stoneybatter, 'Prince Hackball'
(Patrick Corrigan), the infamous pickpocket, and the mysterious
'Scaldbrother', mentioned in a previous Blather issue. Some
tales of Irish wakes (i.e. funerary traditions), and we amble
back to O'Connell St., where Molly prepares to collect another
horde of unwitting victims.

Highly recommended, for tourists and residents alike...

Scaldbrother:
http://www.blather.net/archives2/issue2no24.html


Departs from:
Dublin Bus
59 Upper O'Connell St.
Dublin 1
+353 1 8734222


http://www.dublinbus.ie/

The Dublin Ghost Bus Tour site:

http://www.dublinbus.ie/html/travinfo/tours/ghost.html

Price: �12.00
Duration: 2 1/4 Hours

Departure Time:
Tuesday-Friday: 7:30pm
Saturday: 7:30pm and 9:30pm
Sunday: 7:30pm
No Monday Tour

At the moment, the Ghost Bus seems to be operating between March
and late Autumn. It may a good idea to phone Dublin Bus to
confirm that the tour is actually on.

Dave (daev) Walsh
June 18th 01999


This issue is archived at

http://www.blather.net/archives3/issue3no2.html

_____________________________________________________

OWLMAN PLEA! - From our man in Exeter, Mr. Jonathan Downes.


"Three years ago I published a book called 'The Owlman and
Others' which told the story of how my ex-wife and I travelled
across the semi-mythical land of Cornwall in search of high
adventure, free drinks, and the legendary 'Owlman of Mawnan' - a
grotesque feathered bird-man which haunts the area immediately
surrounding Mawnan Old Church in southern Cornwall. Last year,
noted fortean Film Director Ben Cusden and I started work on a
feature film loosely based around the book. Very loosely.

Setting my fevered imagination to work I wrote a screenplay
which owes more to cult American 'trash' director John Waters
than anything else. The results of our labours can be found at

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/236/

Now - here's the complicated bit. We only made sixteen minutes
of it because we ran out of money. The reaction we have had from
press and punters is stunning. Everyone loves it (even though it
is completely ridiculous. We need about ten thousand quid to
finish it, and anyone investing in it could be reasonably
assured of a decent return on their investment as well as being
part of the most influential piece of fortean bollocks to have
been made for video ever!

Any fortean philanthropists out there?"

- Jon Downes, Centre for Fortean Zoology

http://www.eclipse.co.uk/cfz/
su2223@eclipse.co.uk

_____________________________________________________

BLEEDIN ERRATA!

In a classic show of carelessness, in the issue 'Hell-Fire
Francis' we accidently referred to the late Anton Szandor LaVey
as 'Anton Salvador LaVey'. Appropriate punishment has been
delivered. Thanks to Marcello Truzzi and Peter Lakbar for
catching that one...

_____________________________________________________


http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/newmag.htm

What's new at Magonia

06/06/99

Visions of Bowmen and Angels
The strange case of Arthur Machen and the Angels of Mons. By Kevin
McClure

Magonia Monthly Supplement #15
ETH - questions that need answering; Satanic update; Allagash under
fire
_____________________________________________________

Octocon X

The Tenth National Irish Science Fiction Convention

Guest of Honour:
Robert Rankin
Bestselling author of
The Brentford Trilogy and Apocalypso

Other Guests Include:
Eugene Byrne, Storm Constantine,
Maggie Furey, Robert Holdstock,
Graham Joyce, Tom Mathews, Ian McDonald,
Kim Newman, Geoff Ryman, Michael Scott,
Brian Stableford, Dave (Daev) Walsh and
James White

9-10 October 1999
Royal Marine Hotel
Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin, Ireland


http://www.iol.ie/~jshields/octocon/

_____________________________________________________

|d|i|s|i|n|f|o|r|m|a|t|i|o|n|
the subculture search engine

http://www.disinfo.com/
Everything You Know is Wrong!
_______________________________________________________

SPONSORSHIP:
While Blather will always remain free to the subscriber, we're
always willing to talk to interested parties with regard to
sponsorship.
Contact: daev@blather.net
_______________________________________________________

For the Blather archives, please go to:

http://www.blather.net/archives/index.html
_______________________________________________________


SUBSCRIBING TO BLATHER
Send an email to:
<list@blather.net>
with the word
subscribe
in the body of the message. An automatic acknowledgement
should be returned to you by e-mail within a few minutes.

UNSUBSCRIBING
Send an email to
<list@blather.net>
with the word
unsubscribe





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                              UFO Over Pakistan

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 00:22:42
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:23:16 -0400
Subject: UFO Over Pakistan


It is widely believed among ufologists that UFOs seek out
theatres of war, cf. the "foo-fighters" during WWII and the
numerous sightings during the Korean War. The sightings below
might be another example.

Forwarded from the newsgroup "uk.rec.ufo".

Stig

***

From: Ralph J. P. Blaney" <aerblney@reading.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.rec.ufo
Subject: UFO over Pakistan
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 20:37:48 +0100
Organization: University of Reading


A fast-moving glowing spherical object was seen in various parts
of Pakistan one night last week. There was concern that it could
have been a missile from India. However, it was travelling too
fast. The incident was reported in a Pakistani Urdu language
newspaper.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                      Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 20:14:06 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:26:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 21:16:10 PDT

>Listfolk:

>Recently we have read charges on this list that Budd Hopkins
>hypnotizes children while pursuing research into UFO-abduction
>reports.  I have had deep doubts about this very serious
>allegation, which runs contrary to everything I know and have
>observed about Budd's ethics, judgment, and sensitivity to
>others.

>As some of you are aware, Budd does not have e-mail.  I have,
>however, just heard from my friend David M. Jacobs, who does.
>Even more astonished than I to read these fantastic claims, he
>phoned Budd to ask about them. Jacobs informs me -- not
>surprisingly, to those of us who know Budd -- that Hopkins has
>_never_ conducted hypnosis with children. Nor, for that matter,
>has Jacobs.

>In other words, we've been at the receiving end of the Big Lie.
>Those who have passed it on, innocently if recklessly, owe Budd
>Hopkins an apology. Those who knew or suspected it was a lie but
>circulated it anyway are beyond redemption.  The former are
>urged, in the name of common decency, to apologize publicly.
>This list would be a good place to do it.


Dears friends of the list and Jerry Clark,

I don't know who can say such a lie.

We know Budd Hopkins and I met him here in Brazil in 1997,
during the World Ufology Forum. I spoke with him and to me he
appered very, very serius and worker.

This big lie just show us how some people are jealous.

I can guarantee to you, Hopkins is a very good person and do a
excellent job.

Thanks.



THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI
Diretor Do Departamento de Publicao e Traduo Especializadas ( DEPTE -
EBE-ET / Brasilia-Brasil)
Director of the Publication Department and Specialized Translation
ICQ - 35119615
****** SE VOC NO  POLCIA NO USE ARMAS ************





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                     Gigantic 'Heart' formation on Mars

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 01:26:23
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:28:41 -0400
Subject: Gigantic 'Heart' formation on Mars


Source: Discovery News Brief, June 18, 1999,

http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/brief5.html?ct=376acff3

Go to the site to see NASA's photo!

Stig

***

>From Mars, With Love

**

The Mars Global Surveyor has received a love letter from the Red
Planet, as new images reveal a gigantic "Heart" formation
stretched across the Martian surface.

New images released Thursday by NASA show a distinctly
heart-shaped pit on the Martian surface. The "Heart" on Mars is
the latest addition to a growing list of fanciful features
spotted on the Red Planet's surface.

The most famous of all, of course, is the "Face" on Mars, a rock
formation resembling a human face that was first photographed by
the Viking spacecraft in the 1970s. The picture spawned ongoing
speculation that extraterrestrials built the Face.

More recently, cameras from the Global Surveyor also revealed a
"Happy Face" on Mars, a 134-mile-wide crater bearing a striking
resemblance to the well-known happy face icon. This jolly
formation was discovered during the first day of the Global
Surveyor' s mapping mission in March.

The Martian valentine was formed when a straight-walled trough,
called a graben in geological terms, collapsed, according to a
NASA press release.

Graben form along fault lines as bedrock terrain expands, says
NASA. The features typically form as tectonic forces move the
ground apart, or when the ground is uplifted by molten rock from
deep within the planet shooting up toward the Martian surface,
NA SA says.

At its widest, the Martian "Heart" stretches about 1.4 miles
across. Ground controllers trained the Global Surveyor's camera
on the formation to examine the relationship between a lava flow
and the graben and pits that cut across the flow, disrupting its
path.

The graben, pit, and lava flow are located on the east flank of
the Alba Patera volcano in northern Tharsis, a volcanic region
of Mars, NASA says.


By Discovery News Brief


Related Stories:

*Mission to Mars '99

*The Face on Mars

*Search Our Space Files


Picture: NASA

Copyright � 1999 Discovery Communications 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:20:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:30:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:22:35 -0400

<snip>

>Yes, Budd sent his samples of alleged alien writing to Stewart
>Appelle, the editor of the Journal of UFO Studies (which, for
>those on this list who might not know, is the only peer-reviewed
>scientific journal in the UFO field).

>Budd sent them nearly two years ago. JUFOS, however, is in
>serious financial trouble, and hasn't published an issue since
>1996. Stewart had said he'd assemble a team to study the
>material, but I don't know if he ever did. If he didn't, I'd
>assume it was because JUFOS didn't seem likely to publish any
>time soon.


Greg,

I'm confused. I could have sworn that you had posted to this
thread words to the effect that you were having a hard time
getting Budd to turn his many alien script samples over to
anyone for analysis. Now you're saying it was done two years
ago?

Just asking for clarification.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:42:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:32:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 19:58:05 PDT

<snip>

>Statements like these betray an unhelpful bias. I know at least
>three abductees on this list -- eminently sane, thoughtful,
>anything but crazy or suggestable -- who, I am sure, would
>resent your suggestion that their experiences are mere "dreams
>and fantasies." (How can they be, by the way,  "dreams and
>fantasies" and yet "a fundamental reality?")  I think it would
>behoove us, when we discuss matters about which much remains
>unclear, to use neutral words like "narratives" to characterize
>abduction accounts, unless we have clear and specific reason to
>identify them as "dreams and fantasies" (or, for that matter,
>interactions with aliens).


Jerry,

I'm all with you on this one! Narrative as a descriptor sounds
good to me.

Now can we count on Budd, Dave and John Mack to sign on to same?

Damn, there I go again, never content to leave well enough alone.

BTW, the word you want is suggestible.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:15:00 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:35:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 19:58:05 PDT
>Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:48:32 -0400
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:37:44 +0100

Previously Jenny had offered:

>>Dennis is absolutely right. The day when a
>>genuine researcher gets into serious legal difficulties as a
>>result of hypnotic regression is a racing certainty. It may not
>>be Budd. It could be anyone. But it will happen and, I'm afraid,
>>UFOlogy will be rightly hauled over the coals by the media for
>>allowing it to get that far.

Hello all,

I've been tied up in a massive documentary film project for the
last several months and haven't been able to participate in the
list. However, Jenny's statement above reminds me of my first
commercial film project when I was about 24 or so. I used a
piece of copyrighted music without permission (naughty me) and
after handing the film over to a distributor began to feel pangs
of guilt. I asked a friend of mine (who was a lawyer) if I might
really get sued by the music's producers.

His response? "One can only hope so," he said. "For, surely, it
would be an indication of great profits for your little film.
You would have made enough money for them to actually feel
cheated!"

Likewise, we can only hope that Jenny's concerns about impending
lawsuits against ufologists are well founded. Why? Because, for
damages to be proven, the "memories" dredged up by the use of
hypnosis would have to be accepted (at some point) as fact; not
only by the "victim" but by the courts as well.

Despite the aftermath, it will be a welcome day when society and
the courts declare _any_ UFO experience as "real". Though I
personally don't believe hypnosis is worth beans as an
investigative tool, I wouldn't want to prevent Mr. Hopkins or
anyone else from carrying on with their efforts. Sometimes the
ends do justify the means...

Take care all,

Roger Evans





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

             Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:08:54 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:38:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:35:26 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


>>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:52:03 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>Try whipping your cowling tool out of your pocket (while in
>>flight) and making two comparisons with two distant objects in
>>two different directions while manually rolling down your left
>>window and turning your "trimmed" plane south, and then tell me
>>if you can do all the above in a 1947 airplane within two
>>minutes' time or less. I don't think so.

>The key to doing a good sighting analysis is, first, to expose
>any assumptions one is making, and to validate them against
>reality. There is no point in attempting any analysis until that
>step is complete. In the above, the assumptions were:>

>a) Flying an airplane is like driving a car. Turning is hard,
>requires lots of concentration, and use of hands.

>b) Arnold had to roll down the window to open it.>>

>c) The cowling tool is large, clumsy and inaccessible.>

>>are difficult and time consuming.

>None of these seem justified in the light of the evidence.


Another tacit (unstated) assumpion): that Arnold had to compress
all these activities into a short time like a few seconds.
Actually, he could have taken 10 seconds or more with the
cowling tool,. turned the plane (30 seconds) and slide back the
window (a few seconds) all within the 102 seconds of time as the
objects went from Rainier to Adams.  No big sweat!





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 00:55:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:59:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:52:12 EDT
>Subject:  Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:44:13 -0400
>>Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:23:10 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

<snip>

Sorry for butting in, but...

It seems to me that the only people re-hashing classic UFO cases
are those who are absolutely skeptical about UFOs, have never
seen one (or more) or who just don't want to accept that earth
is being visited by (several) alien cultures from elsewhere.

To me, this re-hashing of classic cases (whether it's Kenneth
Arnold, Lonnie Zamorra, or the Paul Trent photo case) seems
pointless.

One day, we will all be straightened out, and I, for one, hope
to be vindicated for the 14 separate sightings I have had.

The time is long overdue for earthlings to know the truth about
flying saucers, UFOs, whatever you want to call them.

Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps
MUFON Provincial Section Director
for Sudbury, Ontario, Canada &
UFO 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                      Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie

From: Jean-Luc Rivera <JLRIV1@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 05:30:23 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:03:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 21:16:10 PDT

>Listfolk:

<snip>

>As some of you are aware, Budd does not have e-mail.  I have,
>however, just heard from my friend David M. Jacobs, who does.
>Even more astonished than I to read these fantastic claims, he
>phoned Budd to ask about them. Jacobs informs me -- not
>surprisingly, to those of us who know Budd -- that Hopkins has
>_never_ conducted hypnosis with children. Nor, for that matter,
>has Jacobs.

Having been privileged to know Budd Hopkins for more than twenty
years now, I can confirm what Jerry just wrote: Budd has never
hypnotized children and has always refused to do so. All of
Budd's research associates can certify it.

The 'confusion' (let us be nice) might have arisen from the fact that
Budd has conducted some investigations in cases involving children,
sometimes even toddlers, by interviewing the children, always at the
request of and in the presence of the parents, and showing them a deck
of images of different characters including a 'standard' grey to see
who they identify as their 'visitors'.

These interviews never included hypnosis: anybody who knows even
slightly Budd knows that he cares too much about people to do
that.

>In other words, we've been at the receiving end of the Big Lie.
>Those who have passed it on, innocently if recklessly, owe Budd
>Hopkins an apology. Those who knew or suspected it was a lie but
>circulated it anyway are beyond redemption.  The former are
>urged, in the name of common decency, to apologize publicly.
>This list would be a good place to do it.

I agree heartily with Jerry.

Jean-Luc Rivera






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                              Re: Cashman & IUR

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 06:24:21 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:10:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Cashman & IUR


>From: Bill Weber <koran@cchat.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Cashman & IUR
>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:02:05 -0400

>I just received the new edition of IUR and for the life of me
>can't understand why I hadn't subscribed earlier.  For those
>desiring the best attempt at a scholarly publication (and one
>done without a leading University research budget) IUR fits the
>bill.  This is legitimate, ground-breaking, first-class stuff.

>Anyone who publicly laments the lack of thoughtful, credible UFO
>research isn't reading IUR.  (It was certainly well worth my 25
>bucks.)

>And while I'm raving about the publication, I'd also like to
>rave about Mark Cashman.

>Over, around and through the hysterics, name calling and
>character assassination by those claiming to be devoted to UFO
>research, Cashman has been quietly, and sometimes not so
>quietly, churning out the best stuff on the planet.

>His recent, "Behavioral classification system for UFO occupants"
>is a thoughtful and sincere effort that lays some important
>groundwork for further study.  I congratulate Mark Cashman and
>those involved in the publication of IUR.


Dear Bill:

I certainly agree.

Of the recent issues, I liked the Winter (lost in the mail but
got here anyhow) issue the best.

IUR belongs in the stacks of every major library, right next to
the skeptical reviews and speculative (fringe?) sciences.

If you are lucky enough to have a serious "old-timer" or two for
a friend,  you might look through his copies from years back.

I did, and I was impressed.

- Larry Hatch

PS:  As for things lost in the mail, I have a true personal
story.  [whether you want it or not. (burp)]

On vacation in Europe once, I was writing some postcards from a
pub in a small town in Britain. I asked directions to the
nearest mailbox.

I was told it was right in front of the such-and-such shop near
the corner of This and That street.

Not knowing any of the above, I asked what color the mailbox
was.

All UK mailboxes are the same color(s), just as in the USA, but
_nobody_ could remember which colors!

The common mailbox was such a familiar sight to them, that they
had no conscious recall of the actual colors! A "discussion"
ensued, with various pub-factions insisting on blue, red, dark
green... and various combinations of same.

I finally found out myself when somebody simply led me to the
box!

To save my life, I cannot remember what goddam color it was
myself now!

The point of all this is that one has to watch which receptacle
one puts ones mail into.

I once dropped a letter into a crack in the wall in Mexico that
looked completely unpromising.

"Are you _sure_ that's a legitimate 'Buzon del Correo?" I asked.

"Si! Si!" they all said

That letter got delivered properly regardless.  - LH







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                       British Columbia UFO Radio Show

From: UFO*BC <david_pengilly@dccnet.com>
Date: 19 Jun 1999 07:06:56 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:29:16 -0400
Subject: British Columbia UFO Radio Show


One of the Directors of UFO*BC, Gavin McLeod, will be on CKNW tonight.
The show is called: "Rich Elwood, The Weekend Thing". It runs from
7:00 PM until 10:00 PM. It is broadcast throughout BC, on CKNW (AM 980)
and its affiliates.

The local number is (604) 280-9898
The toll-free number is 1-877-399-9898

Please phone the station if you have any questions for Gavin
regarding UFO*BC, UFO cases in BC, or just UFOs or paranormal in
general. This is your chance to report your own unusual
sighting!

Not counting any phone calls, Gavin is prepared to talk about
some of UFO*BC's best cases, such as:

Strange Lights Reported Over White Rock
The Kimberley Diamond
Crop Formation at Vanderhoof
Bigfoot Tales from Kittimat Village
Cadboroaurus Surfaces Off British Columbia
The Prince George Photographs

Please call! If we get a good response, we will be sure to get
on again!

***********************************************************

If you do not want to receive these updates, please reply
with your e-mail address and I will gladly remove your name
from the list. Thank you.

Dave Pengilly
dave@ufobc.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:35:32 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:41:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:10:02 -0300


>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:22:28 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>>>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:02:23 -0400
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 <snip>

>>>I've only met and spoken to Mr Hopkins once.

>>>I have my problems with some of his work, but I think it is best
>>>to frame such objections dispassionately and with careful
>>>attention to what is attainable in this field.

>>Too often we resort to name calling and ignore dispassionate
>>discourse.

>>>I am currently at work on a critique of the problems I see in
>>>abduction research, and I will do my best to address those
>>>problems without reference to personalities. That's how science
>>>should be done.

>>I have just had my critique of the abduction research published
>>by TOR (St. Martins), written with Russ Estes and Bill Cone.

>>KRandle, Ph.D.*

>>Yes, I have now received my degree in psychology.

 <snip>

>Sincere congratulations to Kevin..

>A difficult and significant achievement while writing and
>researching.

Thank you, Stan. I appreciate your kind words. The biggest
challenge was the statistical analysis of the raw data
concerning the research for my dissertation.

>Any place to buy an autographed copy of the book?

Of course. I have a stack of them signed by Russ Estes and me.
Addresses can be accessed through my website at:

www.randlereport.com

You can also send $25.95 plus $5.00 for
shipping and handling (which means the envelope and postage) to
PO Box 264, Marion, IA 52302.

And thanks, Stan, for the opportunity to plug the book 'The
Abduction Enigma'. It is now available in bookstores, as well as
on-line services such as Amazon.

KRandle, Ph.D.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

              Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell

From: KRandle993@aol.com
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:10:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:28:40 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell


List, All -

I'm not sure what induced Kal Korff to announce that the Glenn
Dennis story was not accurate so long after most of us have
decided that it was. I was, however, more surprised by the
support of Dennis with the "so he lied" defense. We all agree
that he lied about his nurse. What more do we need to know about
him?

It would seem to me that once we have caught a witness in a lie,
then we must re-evaluate all the testimony that comes from that
witness. In this case it goes beyond just lying about one small
and insignificant aspect of his tale, but the lies are essential
to his entire story. Without the lies, Dennis would not be on
the stage, and that might suggest something to us.

Certainly, we have been confronted by lies by UFO witnesses in
the past. Some of those lies are harmless and meaningless.
Others address the central issues. Dennis, for example, said
that he had been a mortician in Roswell. In 1947 that wasn't
exactly true. He was, in fact, only an embalmer. Is this...
embellishment... sufficient for us to reject his story? No. In
fact, it is clear that he was a mortician during his career, so
the exaggeration in 1947 was, and is, of little importance.

We have been confronted by many people in the UFO field who have
exaggerated their employment. Some have lied about their jobs,
others have denied they held the jobs they held. Sometimes these
lies can be understood in the context of the situation but even
then, we begin to look at the tellers of those lies a little
differently, especially when the lie is of no consequence. Why
lie about something like that?

Others have lied about their educational background. Here Jesse
Marcel, Sr. comes to mind. We have a discrepancy between the
record and what Marcel said. Of course, if Marcel was still
alive, we might be able to resolve this dilemma, but, in today's
world we can't. We know that many military men have taken
classes at various universities for their military occupations.
Many of those classes were taught by the professors, but
attendance at those courses are not listed by the universities.

There are also extension courses taught at military bases by the
universities. I have, as yet, been unable to locate any records,
with one minor exception, to suggest that this is the case with
Jesse Marcel. Such classes are given for college credit. In my
own case, when I entered the University of Iowa, I received a
number of credits for university courses that I took in the
Army. This might explain the discrepancy between what Marcel
said and what we can find.

Of course, the real point is that Marcel was, in 1947, exactly
who he said he was. He was the intelligence officer at Roswell
and the story he told was corroborated by various records,
newspapers, and other officers. The problem with his educational
background is, at this point, a minor problem that is,
essentially, irrelevant.

But, when we move into the realm of Glenn Dennis, we find, not a
single embellishment or exaggeration, but a complex web of lies
that go directly to the core of his claims. He told us of a
nurse who had told him what she had witnessed on the base - a
partial, or preliminary, autopsy. She described the alien
creatures to him, begging him not to reveal what she had said.
He had been "sworn to secrecy."

Dennis, however, hesitated only briefly when asked the name. He
told all of us that it was Naomi Self, or a variation of that
name. Searches through all sorts of documented sources, military
files, unit histories, school records, birth records and the
like, failed to produce results. When Dennis was confronted with
the results, he said that he had never given anyone the real
name. It meant, according to Dennis, he had lied about a central
feature of his tale.

Before more commentary, there is a personal note. A number of
years ago, I was searching for Robert Slusher. I had spoken to a
number of men named Robert Slusher who had been in the Army Air
Forces in the mid-1940s. They were not the correct man.

This becomes important because, at that time, I was talking to
Dennis. He asked me why, after he had violated the confidence,
after he had provided me (and many others) with the name of his
nurse, we had failed to find her. He was, well, not exactly
irate, but certainly disappointed in our failure to find the
nurse. I explained the situation to him, meaning that there were
many people with the same name. Plug John Smith into a CD-Rom
telephone 'book' and look at the number of hits.

The point is, Dennis, was pushing the name of the nurse. He was
insistent that he had provided the correct name. When we went to
him and said that his nurse didn't exist, he changed his tune.
He hadn't given the right name.

The question is, why not just refuse to name her? Why invent a
name for us to chase? Why reinforce that name by insisting he
had provided the right name? Then, when confronted by the
negative results, change the tale and retreat to the point where
he refuses to name her now? Why not follow that path originally?

The answers to these questions lead to a single conclusion.
There was no nurse. If there was no nurse, then the vast
majority of his tale has no support and collapses. If there was
no nurse, then that segment was a lie, so why should we accept
any other aspect of his story?

The problem for us, as researchers, is that when we find a major
problem with a tale told by a witness, we begin to rationalize
it. We try to think of reasons to reject the importance of the
lie so that we can continue to believe the tale.

It is the same for the researchers. When we learn that an
important researcher has lied about his background, his
employment, his education, he has, to my mind, destroyed his
credibility. Yet, here, in the UFO field, we say, "So he lied?
Everyone does it."

Well, not really. It's a simple excuse so that we can continue
to believe in the man's work, or the witness' story. So, when I
learned that Glenn Dennis lied about his nurse, when there was
no independent corroboration for the tale he told, when there is
evidence that Dennis was less than candid with other aspects of
his story, then I have to reject it. The problem isn't that he
lied about the nurse, but that he lied to us at all. He should
have no credibility and we shouldn't dismiss the problems just
by saying, "Well, he lied." We are obligated to publish that
information as well. I did that in 'The Randle Report' that came
out in June 1997.

So, sorry, but I reject the Glenn Dennis tale now because he
lied, the nurse he described does not exist, and all attempts to
rehabilitate this testimony demonstrates what is wrong with our
research techniques.

Krandle, Ph.D.
http://www.randlereport.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:19:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:32:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:15:00 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 19:58:05 PDT
>>Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:48:32 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:37:44 +0100

>Previously Jenny had offered:

>>>Dennis is absolutely right. The day when a
>>>genuine researcher gets into serious legal difficulties as a
>>>result of hypnotic regression is a racing certainty. It may not
>>>be Budd. It could be anyone. But it will happen and, I'm afraid,
>>>UFOlogy will be rightly hauled over the coals by the media for
>>>allowing it to get that far.

>Hello all,

<snip>

>Likewise, we can only hope that Jenny's concerns about impending
>lawsuits against ufologists are well founded. Why? Because, for
>damages to be proven, the "memories" dredged up by the use of
>hypnosis would have to be accepted (at some point) as fact; not
>only by the "victim" but by the courts as well.

Not quite true. Richard Boylan has already been taken to court
because of his "abduction research." He lost his license to
practice in California because of it. It proved nothing about
the reality of UFOs or abductions, but did demonstrate, at least
some of the problems with hypnotic regression and researcher
bias.

I haven't even mentioned all those who believe in Satanic Ritual
Abuse, who told horrifying tales both with and without hypnosis,
and who in turn sued the doctors for malpractice. I believe that
it was just announced that one "victim" won $2 million in a
lawsuit in Illinois with more to follow.

KRandle, Ph.D.
http://www.randlereport.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:20:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:37:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:27:31 +0100

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 19:58:05 PDT

>>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:37:44 +0100

>>Jenny,

>>>But there is a broader issue -  if hypnosis has a long term
>>>detrimental effect on ufology. I am absolutely certain the
>>>latter is the case.

<snip>

>>>3:  Because I have personally been regressed on several
>>>occasions and therefore seen it unfold first hand. I know how
>>>tempting it is to see images and presume their reality status.

<snip>

>>Isn't yours what might be called, uh, anecdotal testimony? And
>>didn't your experience confirm pretty much what you thought
>>anyway?

<snip>

>>>I know the counter argument. Ufologists do not rely on hypnosis
>>>testimony as the judge of truth. If a case matches another case
>>>then this proves hypnosis has contributed to the quest for
>>>knowkedge. Sadly not.

<snip>

>>..  Which is not to say, of course, that
>>hypnosis should be used carelessly or thoughtlessly. We all
>>prefer cases without it.  It doesn't follow -- as the Hill case
>>tells us -- that cases with it are ipso facto without merit.

<snip>

>>>These may well be based on a fundamental reality

<snip>

Dear Jenny, Jerry and all.

I'm glad to hear that Budd doesn't torment little muchkins with
hypnosis, whether they deserve it or not.

I just flashed on a non-invasive way to check for alien
intervention in the lives of children.

Simply let them draw pictures, without any adult pressure.

Not having had any children myself, here is my expert plan:

1)  Do not order or encourage children to draw pictures.
Instead, show a good example by making little sketches of people
places and things, as if this were an ordinary activity.

2)  Leave paper, pencils, crayons etc. in convenient and
familiar friendly places, but not where the dog can chew them
up.

3) Establish strict rules about artwork on the walls, drapery or
other hard to clean surfaces.

4)  Copy any interesting sketches, but put the originals right
back where they were found! Avoid any sign of confiscation or
invasion of privacy at all costs.

5)  Be patient.

6)  Be patient again.

7)  If that doesn't work, you grab the little munchkins and say:
"Hey look! I'm paying for this whole show!"

"Do you know what Catholic School is costing me? "

"Drop that goddam Adam and Eve crap and come up with a picture
of the squid that ate Chicago, or I'll cut off your Whitley
Strieber book allowance!!"

- - - -

I am sure that this approach will produce results, when suitably
modified as to the particular details of the family at hand.

- - - -

Perhaps others can suggest an even less invasive method.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                   Re: Gigantic 'Heart' formation on Mars

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:52:32 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:41:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Gigantic 'Heart' formation on Mars


>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 01:26:23
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>Subject: Gigantic 'Heart' formation on Mars


>Source: Discovery News Brief, June 18, 1999,

>http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/brief5.html?ct=376acff3

>Go to the site to see NASA's photo!

>Stig

>***

>>From Mars, With Love

><snip>

>Picture: NASA

>Copyright � 1999 Discovery Communications Inc.


"Mmmmmmmmppppfhgh!"

Dear List folk and other folks....

The above is a direct quote from Gesundt on Stig's article,
after going to the site to see the "heart shaped" formation on
the face of Mars.

He later told me that he forced himself, by holding his hands
firmly on his mouth, he was not going to comment on this latest
Mars formation.

He lied.

Dr. 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 17:31:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 13:25:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:15:00 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>Hello all,

>I've been tied up in a massive documentary film project for the
>last several months and haven't been able to participate in the
>list. However, Jenny's statement above reminds me of my first
>commercial film project when I was about 24 or so. I used a
>piece of copyrighted music without permission (naughty me) and
>after handing the film over to a distributor began to feel pangs
>of guilt. I asked a friend of mine (who was a lawyer) if I might
>really get sued by the music's producers.

>His response? "One can only hope so," he said. "For, surely, it
>would be an indication of great profits for your little film.
>You would have made enough money for them to actually feel
>cheated!"

>Likewise, we can only hope that Jenny's concerns about impending
>lawsuits against ufologists are well founded. Why? Because, for
>damages to be proven, the "memories" dredged up by the use of
>hypnosis would have to be accepted (at some point) as fact; not
>only by the "victim" but by the courts as well.

>Despite the aftermath, it will be a welcome day when society and
>the courts declare _any_ UFO experience as "real". Though I
>personally don't believe hypnosis is worth beans as an
>investigative tool, I wouldn't want to prevent Mr. Hopkins or
>anyone else from carrying on with their efforts. Sometimes the
>ends do justify the means...


Hi,

Unfortunately, as some of us know, a lawsuit does not have to be
valid, justified or taken to court to be damaging. Vindictive
suits are becoming common in a litigious society. The prospect
of some person sensing an oportunity is there (if not to get
money via an out of court settlement then to do so via a tabloid
who will see this as a good story even if its legal, moral and
factual merits are zilch).

Would that such a case could serve to benefit ufology. Sadly it
would not. I am not for one moment suggesting such a case would
be justified or successful, but I am afraid it could happen
regardless.

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                            J. Allen Hynek Quote

From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@dc.seflin.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:30:15 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 13:51:15 -0400
Subject: J. Allen Hynek Quote

From: Michael Estes <mestes@methow.com>
Via: "'ufolist@egroups.com'" <ufolist@egroups.com>

The following is quoted by J. ALLEN HYNEK in the Foreword to
'Challenge To Science - UFO Enigma' by Jacques Vallee, 1966:

FOREWORD

WHAT is the responsibility of the scientist confronted with
observations that seem not only a challenge but sometimes also
an affront to science? How does one discharge this
responsibility? The UFO phenomena presents us with such a
problem. To most scientists who have no acquaintance with the
subject, save that gained from scanning the popular press, it is
an "untouchable" area. Flying saucers indeed!-the product of
immature, imaginative, and even unbalanced minds, the playground
of the pseudo-scientist and the quasi-mystic, the haven of the
crackpot.

Is this really so? Obviously, if one is to apply the scientific
principles we all staunchly defend, one must take the time to
look into the subject carefully-to look and to consider. But
time is precisely what today's scientists-in some respects the
world's busiest people -do not have! Who can take the time to
wade through the seeming morass of stories, fanciful tales,
chimera, and balderdash when SO many pressing things demand the
scientist's immediate attention?

As an astronomer, I probably would never have approached the
subject had I not been officially asked to do so. Over the past
eighteen years I have acted as a scientific consultant to the
U.S. Air Force on the sub-ject of unidentified flying
objects-UFO's. As a conse-quence of my work on the voluminous
air force files and, to a greater extent, of personal
investigation of many puzzling cases and interviews with
witnesses of good repute, I have long been aware that the
subject of UFO's could not be dismissed as mere nonsense.
Nonsense is present, to be sure, and misidentification of
otherwise familiar objects that many sincere people report as
UFO's. But is there not a "signal" in the "noise," a needle in
the haystack? Is it not precisely our role to try to isolate the
valid from the nonsensical? By carefully working through tons of
pitchblende, Madame Curie isolated a tiny amount of radium-but
the significance of that minute quantity was world--shaking.

It is my conclusion (speaking now personally and not in an
official capacity) after many years of working through "tons" of
reports, that there is a signal, that there is "radium" in the
"pitchblende," waiting to be extracted. The authors of this book
have come to the same conclusion, by a somewhat different path.
Whether the scientifically valid in the entire UFO phenomenon
proves to be a physical signal or a psychological one -or even a
heretofore unknown phenomenon-it is in every respect a challenge
to science.

Perhaps I should have spoken earlier; eighteen years is a long
time. But it takes more evidence to get an idea accepted in a
revolutionary field, be it biological evolu-tion, relativity, or
quantum mechanics, than it does to advance simply another step
in an accepted scientific domain. Furthermore, astronomers are
among the most conservative of scientists. Perhaps this is
because their time scale is so great that they naturally bide
their time in proposing or accepting revolutionary ideas,
partic-ularly if such ideas are subject to sensational treatment
in the press and in the minds of the people.

Nonetheless, I have of late been rebuked, in my correspondence
with people whose integrity I respect, with the charge that I
failed to call the importance of the air force data on UFO's to
the attention of my peers. If any defense is needed, in view of
the controversial and explosive nature of the subject, it is
that I did indeed on many occasions call guarded attention to
the steadily growing mass of reports made by intelli-gent people
from many countries. As early as 1952, before the Optical
Society of America, I pointed out the significant nature of some
types of UFO reports (article published in the Journal of the
Optical Society of America, April, 1953). Over and above that,
there remains the fact that for years I have personally de-voted
a portion of my time to this subject, an action that would be
unthinkable had I not felt it was worthy of examination. I have
long been aware that the UFO phenomenon is a global one and that
it has captured the attention of many rational people. Numerous
scien-tists have privately told me of their interest and their
willingness to look further into the problem.

Also, as a scientific consultant to the U.S. Air Force, I carry
a unique responsibility: any statement I make on the importance
of the UFO phenomenon, unless backed by overwhelming evidence,
carries the danger of "mobilizing the credulity of the world,"
as a univer-sity colleague of mine so aptly put it. I recognize
that responsibility in accepting the invitation of the authors
to write the Foreword to this book. It was only my respect for
the authors as serious investigators and the continued and
growing mass of unexplained UFO re-ports that prompted me to
accept. I have over the years acquired something of a reputation
as a "debunker" of UFO reports. If this arose from my honest
desire to find a rational natural explanation for the stimuli
that give rise to the reports, a procedure very frequently
crowned with success, then I must bear with that reputa-tion. If
it stems, however, from a belief that I deliber-ately adopted a
Procrustean approach, cutting down or stretching out evidence to
make a forced fit, deliber-ately to "explain away" UFO reports
at all cost, then it is a most unwarranted charge.

In my nearly two score years' association with the investigation
of the reports, I have yet to write a book on the subject,
primarily because there is no physical evidence in support of
the phenomenon. Were I to write such a book today, however, I
probably would take much the same approach followed by the
present authors. The Vallees present a formidable amount of
evidence for the. global nature of the UFO phenomenon, but
despite this they come to no firm conclusion. As they state: "We
must realize that the observations we have reviewed . . . have
no value in themselves. They are important and deserve study,
only because each one is an illustration of a phenomenon that
has manifested itself since May, 1946, in every country in the
world." Besides the fact that the reports bear striking
similarities to each other they continue to be made by people of
good repute, which makes it imperative that a scientific
investigation be undertaken. Because of the global nature of the
total phenomenon, this investigation might well be carried our
under the auspices of the United Nations. The psychological
implications of the UFO phenomenon on world affairs certainly
make it worthy of study. It makes no difference, in this
respect, what the physical truth of the matter is; it is the
impact it has on the minds of people in many nations that makes
it potentially important in the psychosociological balance of
the world.

My own interest, as an astronomer, in the total phenomenon is,
of course, purely scientific. Some readers many well wonder
whether this seemingly flam-boyant subject is amenable to
scientific inquiry. What constitutes scientific evidence in this
field? The authors present a convincing argument that the UFO
phenom-enon can be studied with the advanced methods of inquiry
of the physical scientist and of the sociologist and
psychologist. In all of these methods the electronic computer
figures prominently.

Scientific inquiry becomes possible when the phenom-enon under
study exhibits patterns and-regularities, when it is subject to
classification Lee authors have shown that a classification
system (the start of many branches of science) of UFO phenomena
is possible and, indeed, that each type they have identified
shows a different diurnal frequency pattern. In particular,
their catalogue of five hundred cases should be of interest to
scientists. I cannot help drawing a parallel with the first
catalogues of celestial radio sources: the great majority- of
the entries were unidentified optically; only more ad-vanced
methods of analysis and observation revealed that some of these
were distant radio galaxies and that some were the striking new
puzzle, quasi-stellar sources. The present catalogue of UFO
cases consists, with very few exceptions, of unidentified items;
one wonders whether the parallel with the catalogue of radio
sources continues.

Certainly no progress can be made without scientific study.
Unfortunately, as the authors point out, scientists, "draped
with dignity," have often refused to study the reports. The fact
of the matter is that many of my colleagues who have undraped
their dignity long enough to take a hard look at the reports
have joined the grow-ing ranks of the puzzled scientists: they
privately indi-cate serious interest in the phenomenon but
publicly they choose, like the subject itself, to remain
unidenti-fied; they are unwilling to expose themselves to the
raillery and banter that go with it. It is to them in
par-ticular, and to all who foster the true Galilean spirit,
that this book will be of greatest value. They grope and seek,
examining even those ideas that seem fanciful and strange, for
they know how strange and fanciful the term "nuclear energy"
would have been to a physicist one hundred years ago. They are
ready to accept a new challenge to science.


J. Allen Hynek
Chairman, Department of Astronomy, and Director,
Dearborn Observatory, Northwestern University


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









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                   Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Confusion

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 20:27:38 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 07:52:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Confusion



>From: Jean-Luc Rivera <JLRIV1@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 05:30:23 EDT
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 21:16:10 PDT

>>Listfolk:

><snip>

>>As some of you are aware, Budd does not have e-mail.  I have,
>>however, just heard from my friend David M. Jacobs, who does.
>>Even more astonished than I to read these fantastic claims, he
>>phoned Budd to ask about them. Jacobs informs me -- not
>>surprisingly, to those of us who know Budd -- that Hopkins has
>>_never_ conducted hypnosis with children. Nor, for that matter,
>>has Jacobs.

>Having been privileged to know Budd Hopkins for more than twenty
>years now, I can confirm what Jerry just wrote: Budd has never
>hypnotized children and has always refused to do so. All of
>Budd's research associates can certify it.

<snip>

Hi,

I want to respond to the way this 'debate' has degenerated into
this story of a 'big lie'. Frankly, I am horrified.

To summarise, so far as I know I have NEVER (yes, I know that is
rude and shouting on the net) argued that Budd Hopkins is not a
decent, honest, compassionate man who cares deeply about the
people he works with. I have met Budd several times over the
years, always been impressed by him and have repeatedly
expressed my positive views on him in print. Read any of my
books concerning abductions and that will be obvious. We
disagree on the interpretation of CE 4s and on the use of
hypnosis but that is not important to me as I disagree with many
UFOlogists on many things and I have never had anything but
respect and admiration for his work or for himself as a person.
So I hope that is completely clear.

Consequently at no point have I ever even contemplated
attacking, name calling, rebuking or whatever a man whom I
admire. This whole issue is about hypnosis - something Budd
supports and I don't. He might be right and I might be wrong.
Everyone else is entitled to their opinion on the matter. But
surely we can debate this as a question of issues without
turning it into a needless fight about personalities.

The whole thing stems from two things which need to be clarified
and re-emphasised in case anyone has not followed the full
debate. Firstly, a reply that I sent to a UK posting circulated
between ex BUFORA members criticising a lecturer who gave a
presentation that they did not support. I thought I was
responding just to those UK people. Unknown to me the message
was forwarded to this list as part of the cc list of one of
those in BUFORA.

In my reply I deliberately set up the UK critics by taking their
argument through irony to an extreme - suggesting that we should
all ban various people from future lectures because we don't like
what they were doing. Budd came up in the course of that as an
example UK researchers would comprehend (he is one of the few
well known American researchers to regularly lecture in the UK).
This piece was a set up, designed to show what taking this
censorship to an extreme would achieve. People were lured into
the idea of creating a declaration banning UFOlogists before
realising its implications.

Immediately the reactions set in I posted an explanation. This
showed the folly of the argument - how, for instance, many of
those calling for a ban had themselves invited Budd to the UK,
how I was lecturing with Budd (by no means for the first time)
shortly so should ban myself, how it was just absurd to reach
the point where arbitrary censorship by people who set
themselves up to do this dictated ufology.

From this innocent premise (which made the point in the UK and
ended the debate on the disputed lecture) the thing took off
into a tangent about why I had suggested (and completely none
seriously as you can see) that Budd would be censored from UK
lectures . This was his alleged work with children and his use
of hypnosis (banned in the UK by BUFORA, but by no means by all
groups). The row took off (now despite me ). It became seen as
an attack on Budd.

Jerry Clark then asked Budd if he did regress children, he
categorically stated he had never done so and would not do so.
Jerry termed the claim that he had ever done so as being
reckless and irresponsible. Further words followed from other
postings suggesting jealousy was a factor and seemed to be
implying that the attack on Budd had been deliberate rather than
an accidental misunderstanding.

I cannot speak for anybody else who has offered comments on this
list - only myself. I have explained above how this even got to
be debated at all - never with the slightest intention to slur
Budd that's for sure. I have also explained in another posting
why I was under the impression Budd did work with children. It
was as a consequence of a lecture he gave in l993 in Sheffield.
I understood then that (obviously in fact I evidently
misunderstood then that) from his paper. Peter Brookesmith on
this list (who raised this lecture first) confirmed he got that
impression too. In Fortean Times Issue 72 reporting on the
conference (with photos of Budd, etc) there is a detailed report
on his lecture which notes this comment. And at the conference a
BBC reporter was wandering around recording views from people
present and was asking them what they thought of this new
development  - therefore presumably getting the same
misunderstanding as we did.

I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about accepting Budd at
his word. I know he is as honest as the day is long and his
statement is good enough for me. But somewhere, out there in the
videos and transcripts of that l993 Sheffield conference the
reason for this widespread confusion must exist. But it was
clearly an innocent and completely honest mistake made by quite
a few people who were at that conference who were simply
reporting what they took to be a new twist in the subject to be
taken on board. That's all.

I wont be seeking this proof, since as far as I am concerned
Budd's word is all I need and that's the end of the matter for
me. I have apologised to him for the misunderstanding. But if
any of you harbour any doubts that there was something more to
this such as jealousy or an outrageous attack on Budd then I
assure you otherwise .

Incidentally, although this list has reacted as if the
suggestion that children are regressed is a criminal act and
tantamount to someone attempting character assassination, I
never saw it that way. I knew that regressing children has been
considered in both the US and the UK and almost certainly has
happened somewhere. Teenagers certainly have been regressed. I
am genuinely delighted that both Budd and David Jacobs would not
ever contemplate this. It certainly matches my feelings about
them and increases my existing positive impression of their
work. But even had they done so, I would not have considered
them criminals merely unwise in doing something I personally
disagree with but expect other folk do not.

In fact, if you think about it, the abreaction I think this
mistaken impression about regression work provoked rather
illustrates my point. It was widely perceived as a horrible
comment to make and something that would be seen as terrible to
do. Rather more horrific than I ever perceived it myself, in
fact. But if so, then why? Merely because children should not be
regressed? If so, at what age do we regress them? 12? 15? 18? Is
it okay to regress a person who might suffer from epilepsy (the
reason why the UK ban was introduced when such a session went
wrong)? Or people who are in any way beset with some kind of
psychological stress? Or is it okay to work with children by
whatever method to try to dredge out memories of some terrible
hidden trauma (hidden one assumes for good reason by their
conscious mind)?

None of this is a simple issue, but it is an emotive one. I am
totally happy to live with Budd doing things his way and take on
board his findings and integrate them with mine and those of
others who use different methods again. It would be a poor world
if we all had to do things the same way and could not tolerate
any different approach.  Indeed we grow from diversity of
method.  I just have my views on hypnosis and I am prepared to
stand up for them. I am glad others of different mindsets are
willing to do the same.

Remember also that I do not ignore abduction data (including
Budd's) and take it pretty seriously - at least to the point of
discussing it alongside non abduction data in my books. So I am
neither advocating a witch hunt against Budd or against Hypnosis
itself.  I repeat that my postings were expressing my reasons
for not trusting hypnosis and I will freely debate counter
arguments which I realise does exist and has merit. Who knows
you may even change my mind - as I have changed it once myself.
Between l978 and l988 when the ban was introduced I took part in
at least 20 hypnosis experiments and regarded it as the best way
to go. Evidence and experience persuaded me otherwise. So who
knows about tomorrow?

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                       Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency'

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 16:21:34 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 07:58:53 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency'


>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:14:47 -0700
>From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@bellsouth.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: 'The Roots Of Complacency'

>Introduction

>Toward the end of his life, Dr. J. Allen Hynek was a frequent
>visitor to my home, the last of such visits taking place from
>August 20 to August 31. 1985, when  he finally left to have his
>first surgery on September 5, 1985.  After that his health
>declined rapidly and unfortunately he died on April 27, 1986.

>Snipped most respectfully

Thank you so much for this Virgilio.  You have no idea how happy
and gratefull I am to have read this particular post....

>The Roots Of Complacency
>by
>Dr. J. Allen Hynek

>Something truly astonishing happened....  Not far from New York
>City, along the Hudson Valley, as hundreds of astonished people
>looked up, many driving along the Taconic Parkway, they saw
>something no one had ever seen before.

>Some called it a "Space-ship from outer space" (for want of
>anything better) but it was generally described by numbers of
>competent, professional persons as startlingly brilliant lights,
>in the form of a "V", or Boomerang, silent, slowly-moving, and
>very large close-by object.  It has often popularly been called
>the "Westchester (County) Boomerang".

The Westchester County Boomerang had been seen on multiple
occasions since Dr. Hynek wrote those words.  I saw it in Sept.
of 1998, and again on several occasions, in Westchester and
elsewhere.  However since some of these "other" occasions were
not multiply witnessed events (at least, to my knowledge, not
reported to authorities) and in the other, I am not about to
disclose, for many reasons, not the least of which is, you
wouldn't believe it.

>The world has never known about this, even though the event
>happened not once but several times, and over the course of
>several years.  To all intents and purposes, this was a
>non-event.  The media across the world has remained dumb.  Local
>papers, radios and TV's, it is true, did momentarily carry spots
>along with the daily news, but there the news just vanished.

>How is it possible that in the United States, where even trivial
>events are often flashed across the world, only one TV and radio
>network carried an account of this utterly astounding event?
>Far, far lesser stories are spewen forth across the world!

>Could it possibly be that the whole thing just never happened?
>No: many times there was good, but extremely local, media
>coverage; many hundreds have personally attesteds to us, and to
>many others, that the "Westchester Boomerang" was most
>undeniably, very truly real to them.  Furthermore, many
>witnesses at a given time, were geographically separate, and
>unknown to each other.  Cars along the Taconic Parkway, a well
>traveled highway, stopped, and passengers looked in amazement,
>many frightened and bewildered at the spectacle.

>Police department "blotters" proved that many calls came to
>several local police stations, and we have tape recordings of a
>number of the police involved.  The Boomerang was undeniably
>real; it was not a chimera!

>Yes, something truly and astonishing transpired, but was no one
>"minding the store", was everyone asleep at the switch?  What
>about law enforcement agencies (whose duty is certainly to alert
>and assist when something amazing is afoot; what about civilian
>and military personnel?

>When hundreds of largely professional, affluent people, in
>suburban areas, are astonished, awestruck, and many frightened
>by what they could only regard as a very bizarre event, would
>this not at least warrant and bring forth some comment from the
>nation's media? And what about law officers, government
>officials and... what of the FAA which supposedly monitors the
>airwaves over which the "Boomerang" repeatedly flew, and thus
>constituted a serious hazards, especially over the Taconic
>Parkway.

<snip>

>The puzzle has far more parts than the tale of the Boomerang..
>It is, indeed, a part of a continuing story of mankind's
>pioneering search for adventure and meeting, but repeatedly
>dashed and frustrated by those who cannot look to the heights of
>the pioneer: by the "it will never fly" or "it can't be done"
>mentalities.  These who always must say that "since it can't be
>done, there is no need to even thinking about it or even talking
>about it.

>Therein lies the spawning ground of indifference, of apathy, and
>to dereliction of duty.

>All those who didn't follow through on the Boomerang event were
>not willfully derelict: they were merely the thousands of "it
>will never fly" and "it can't be done" and so there is no need
>to think about it.  The corollary is: "Since it can't be done,
>whatever said had been done, were simply deluded... they must
>have been mistaken, and so no need to look into it further".  It
>is the failure to seek for the light of the tunnel because there
>could 't be a light.
> Snip

Dr. Hynek went on to talk about a complacency born of the wrong
mind set.  I agree. I am en engineer as well as having a Ph.D.
in other disciplines.  I worked in aerospace military for many
years and still occasionally see duty as a consultant, in spite
of being semiretired.

I've seen wonders since I graduated with an engineering degree
from Manhattan College in 1966.  Some of these caused goose
bumps when I witnessed them for the pride in scientific and
engineering feats accomplished, as with the Lunar Landings, the
Grand Tour (as it was originally called) which was the Voyager
Series of flights. I was there when the engineers and
mathematicians were doing their cypherin' much by hand for
Pete's sake.... computers where in their infancy in 1966, in
terms of not being on every engineer's desktop.

Point is, I am not easily impressed any more.

But when I looked up over my home in Hartsdale, NY, located in
central Westchester County, about three miles as the crow flies
from the Hudson River, and saw that huge triangle traveling at
less than 50 mph, at an altitude of less than 3500 feet, and not
making a sound, I was so awe struck I cannot describe the event
without making those goose bumps reappear on my body.

I know what I saw.  And I know what I did not see ... wasn't
swamp gas, a flight of Foo birds, neither was it a flight of
ultra lights, Virginia Slims or anything else known in my
physics repertoire. Nothing I learned about in school, at work
or after much more than 30 years in this business of High
Technology can support what that thingy was

So what?  That was a question.  So I called the local airport,
which in my case was White Plains (Westchester County) airport.
I got an amused response to a simple question, "Has anything
anomalous been reported in the skies over Westchester tonight?"
Simple question. I didn't say I saw a frying putty tat, a
saucer, a disk, swamp gas or even a triangle nearly hovering at
3500 with the ceiling at 5,000 feet and not making a sound while
YOUR airport traffic was approaching under this thing by a
thousand to fifteen hundred feet.  I mean for cripe's sake the
damned thing was better than a thousand feet ACROSS and strobing
so bright they could see it on the moon!

And the same reaction when this person in the tower referred me
to the FAA, whom I called on Long Island.  Only this time there
was a long pause before they made fun of me.  Right!  Uh huh.

Then I called people I do know and know me ... the cops!  Hey,
Gesundt gets around!  Seriously, I've been donating my time to
law enforcement for twenty-five years.  I do the Simulated
Emergency Test every year here in the county and handle ALL the
disaster communications from law enforcement to Red Cross to Ham
and even CB radios.  Been doin it since 1970.

After all the fun was done, I found out that there were about 30
reports, with one claiming a landing (or hovering) of a
triangular object at one of the reservoirs in the northern part
of the county.  I guess they put  that loon in with John Ford.

I agree with Dr. Hynek.

Complacency.

But I would add one additional word ... culpability.

Some of you like to solve the UFO conundrum with swamp gas of
your own.  Save it.  You are fooling no one but the biggest
fools alive. Yourselves.  We, that is to say I and many more
like me, can see through your truth.  Because it doesn't conform
to ours?  No. Because many of you are blinded your own light.

Some people cannot, unfortunately for them, see the light
surrounding them.  Some others, cannot see anything else, once
they've discovered the light surrounding themselves.  Funny
isn't it?

Not.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                      Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie

From: Peter Brookesmith - Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 21:39:15 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 10:03:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie


With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 21:16:10 PDT


Recently we have read charges on this list that Budd Hopkins
hypnotizes children while pursuing research into UFO-abduction
reports.  I have had deep doubts about this very serious
allegation, which runs contrary to everything I know and have
observed about Budd's ethics, judgment, and sensitivity to
others.

<snip>

>Even more astonished than I to read these fantastic claims, he
>phoned Budd to ask about them.

The tone of outrage and righteous indignation that this and
related posts have displayed strikes me as a trifle belated,
apart from being bloated. I particularly wonder why it took
Jerome, a devoted and assiduous reader of "Fortean Times", six
years to crank his glands into an uproar of "astonishment" or
(alternatively) to notice that his morality meter had long since
bent its needle.

>Jacobs informs me -- not
>surprisingly, to those of us who know Budd -- that Hopkins has
>_never_ conducted hypnosis with children. Nor, for that matter,
>has Jacobs.

I am pleased to hear it. Given the passage of time since this--

"...Hopkins [did not] make any attempt to address the radical
criticisms and doubts about his technique and competence that
others have made concerning this case and others he has pursued
(for a brief review, see FT 67, page 53). And when one learns,
out of his own mouth, that he is - without qualification or
training -  hypnotically regressing children 'down to the age of
two and a half' to ask them about their 'alien abduction'
experiences, some instinct screams in protest at his arrogance.
Doesn't it ever occur to Hopkins that he could be wrong in his
conviction, and that he may be implanting nightmares in these
children's heads?"

--was printed in FT 72, and the silence thereon until now, I am
not about to ruffle myself unduly to check whether I (or Jenny
Randles, or those sitting next to me in the body of the hall)
have misinterpreted what Hopkins said. However, my memory is
that his words were, approximately, "_We_ have testimony from
hypnotizing children as young as two and a half now." If that is
essentially correct, it's not difficult to see how it created
the impression that the "we" included Hopkins and described his
practice. But I now suspect that "we" means "abductologists",
and that Hopkins meant something like "The evidence from
hypnosis includes some from subjects as young as two and half".
Consider this:

"In the more than two and a half years since I have been working
with abductees I have seen more than a hundred individuals
referred for evaluation of abductions or other "anomalous"
experiences. Of these, seventy-six (ranging in age from two to
fifty-seven; forty-seven females and twenty-nine males,
including three boys eight and under) fulfill my quite strict
criteria for an abduction case: conscious recall or recall with
the help of hypnosis, of being taken by alien beings into a
strange craft, reported with emotion appropriate to the
experience being described and no apparent mental condition that
could account for the story. I have done between one and eight
several-hour modified hypnosis sessions with forty-nine of these
individuals, and have evolved a therapeutic approach I will
describe shortly."

That is on pp2-3 of John Mack, "Abduction", Simon & Schuster
1994. It is of course entirely possible that Mack didn't
hypnotise any of the very young children he mentions, but that
Hopkins thought Mack had when he spoke at Sheffield in 1993.

>In other words, we've been at the receiving end of the Big Lie.
>Those who have passed it on, innocently if recklessly, owe Budd
>Hopkins an apology. Those who knew or suspected it was a lie but
>circulated it anyway are beyond redemption.  The former are
>urged, in the name of common decency, to apologize publicly.
>This list would be a good place to do it.

O, la! - what unctuous hyperbole. Some people really do need to
get a sense of proportion. At worst this is not a lie, let alone
The Big Lie, but a misunderstanding, and one generated by
Hopkins's ambiguity. I *hope* Jerome is not here implying that I
am a liar. Recklessness hardly enters into it.

Neither common decency nor the facts call for a public anything
unless you're addicted to something akin to the traditions of the
Christian flagellants or Maoist self-criticism. In many respects
the Clarkian style of ufological correctness - to whose props we
may now add sackcloth and ashes for the plebs, and a book, a bell
and a candle for theologian Clark - resembles these, but that
doesn't mean their (or his) less couth proclivities should be
encouraged among hoi polloi. If a blunder has been made - which
has yet to be established - a clarifying note to Budd Hopkins is
in order. Whether an apology is required depends on the nature of
the mistake, if any, and that too has yet to be determined. Let
me here echo Jenny's appeal for hard evidence if it can be made
available quickly.

Watching Jerome in one of his officious lathers usually leaves me
suspended uneasily between sensations of queasiness and profound
mirth; more than usually in this instance. This is the man who
described my objections to the supremely tasteless speculations
about John Napolitano's paternity in which Hopkins indulged in
"Witnessed" (see Chapter 25, and have your sick bag ready as you
read) as "moral grandstanding". Perhaps I am singularly blessed:
not only with beautiful green eyes ("rather wasted on a man I
always think" - Lady Caroline Moore, 1999) but with a talent for
misunderstanding - sincerely, of course - the import of what
people say. But this struck me as (a) an implicit defense of
Hopkins's grotesque and potentially damaging musings and (b)
taking one thing with another, an indication of a tendency to
moral confusion on the part of the Boy Bishop of Canby, if not
actual evidence of it.

With or without hypnosis, it seems to me that in his dealings
with children Hopkins is running a severe risk of "implanting
nightmares in... children's heads", and in "Witnessed" he gives
us an illuminating and depressing blow-by-blow account of how he
plays with this fire in his dealings with Johnny (aged nine when
interviewed). Adults can believe what they want about what's
happened to them, being theoretically mature, and there's no
question but that some actually feel better about themselves and
their lives through believing they've been abducted. That's fine
by me. But children intrinsically lack an adult's experiential
defensive armory against suggestion and insinuation: those who
nurture the terrors in children by encouraging or accepting at
face value their tales of abduction are, in my grandstanding
morality, child abusers. I would guess that if any group of
people associated with abductions is going to sue a "researcher",
it will be those who are children now, so I hope abductologists
in general have hefty pension funds, an excellent investment
portfolio and paid-up personal accident insurance.

The older I get the better I understand the rage of Robert Todd.

best wishes
Postman D. Messenger





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

             Night Sky Mystery - Is It A Bird, Is It A Plane..?

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@fan.net.au>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 12:51:53 +1000
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 10:10:49 -0400
Subject: Night Sky Mystery -  Is It A Bird, Is It A Plane..?


The Keith Basterfield Network Australasia
E-Mail  tkbnetw@fan.net.au
http://www.fan.net.au/~tkbnetw

****************************************************************
UFO Australian  Research Network Hot Line Number
                       1800 77 22 88 Free Call
****************************************************************

From Diane in Warwick
Rported By UFOR Queensland

NIGHT SKY MYSTERY IS IT A BIRD, IS IT A PLANE..?

19th June 1999

By Scott Murdoch Warwick Daily News

We know what it isn't but not what is it is.

That's the official word from Toowoomba UFO expert after reports
do bright orange lights flashing across the Warwick sky
Thursday night.

The lights captured the attention of a number of residents,
promoting dozens of phone calls to the Daily News yesterday
The lights were seen about 9.30pm and in the direction which
ranged from the Warwick Hospital to above Akooroomak.

UFO Research Queensland Toowoomba rep Karim Hashim-Jones could
not explain the unknown lights. "I've come up with what it isn't
but not what it is "he said, "It could be extra-terrestorial
life or top top secret aircraft - we just don't know. Mr
Hashim-Jones said there had been "hundreds" of reports of light
above Toowoomba's sky in the last few weeks, but he had not
heard of anything in Warwick.

"I know it's not space junk or a station or an aircraft -
because the description doesn't fit." Warwick resident's Mandy
Ralph saw three bright objects, and she now believes there is
"something out there."

"The lights were going straight but they then went
anti-clockwise and drifted and then all of a sudden they went."
Ms Ralph was relieved when told of other reports. "Good, I'm
glad someone else saw them and I'm not going crazy," she said.
"It was a bit scary actually not knowing what it was." Ms Ralph
said she believed Thursday night's sighting could, in fact have
been a UFO. Channel 10 forecaster Ray Wilkie advied people to
look into the sky Thursday night at what was believed to be a
space Station.

Oakey Aviation centre airfield operations manager Dick Blunt
said Helicopters had been flying in the Warwick region but not
Thursday night.


Regards Diane Harrison
Your roving UFO Investigator from Warwick






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:32:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 10:29:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:20:33 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:22:35 -0400

>Greg,

>I'm confused. I could have sworn that you had posted to this
>thread words to the effect that you were having a hard time
>getting Budd to turn his many alien script samples over to
>anyone for analysis. Now you're saying it was done two years
>ago?

>Just asking for clarification.

Dennis,

Budd readily agreed to give his alien writing samples to Stewart
Appelle (for analysis in JUFOS), when I suggested he do it. It
took him a while to get them sent, but he did do it. I've posted
about this here several times. I don't know why you don't
remember.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                       Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency'

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:23:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 10:46:21 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency'


>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:14:47 -0700
>From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@bellsouth.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: 'The Roots Of Complacency'


>Introduction

>Toward the end of his life, Dr. J. Allen Hynek was a frequent
>visitor to my home, the last of such visits taking place from
>August 20 to August 31. 1985, when  he finally left to have his
>first surgery on September 5, 1985.  After that his health
>declined rapidly and unfortunately he died on April 27, 1986.>>

>During his visits, Dr. Hynek did quite a bit of work using my
>computer which was quite similar to his own at home. At that
>time, his interest was centered on the Hudson Valley sightings>

>Time marched on, and after Dr. Hynek passed away, the work was
>completed by Bob Pratt and published in book form in 1987, under
>the title 'Night Siege'.>

>One day, revising my diskettes, I found a file labeled
>'Imbrogno' which I did not recognize, When I opened it, it was a
>paper intended to be the Preface of the book, that undoubtedly
>by error Allen had saved on one of my diskettes (on  August 30,
>1985, just the day before he left my home).  It is a remarkable
>piece, and once you read it it will be easy to understand why it
>was not used as initially intended.  I think the time has come
>to release it through the internet so every one will see what Dr.
>Hynek's thoughts about these remarkable sightings really were.
>I strongly suggest that you compare 'The Roots Of Complacency'
>'Night Siege'.>

>.Dr. Willy Smith UNICAT PROJECT June 1999

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


>The Roots Of Complacency
>by
>Dr. J. Allen Hynek

I thank Dr. Smith for publishing this very interesting preface
(unpublished)....possibly the last thing Hynek wrote. And, of
course, it portrays the situation even today....





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                              Re: Cashman & IUR

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 01:16:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:01:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Cashman & IUR


>From: Bill Weber <koran@cchat.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Cashman & IUR
>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:02:05 -0400

>Hi, all,

>I just received the new edition of IUR and for the life of me
>can't understand why I hadn't subscribed earlier.  For those
>desiring the best attempt at a scholarly publication (and one
>done without a leading University research budget) IUR fits the
>bill.  This is legitimate, ground-breaking, first-class stuff.

<snip>

Hello all,

Although I try to avoid posting "right on" messages to the list
(do they annoy the hell out of everyone else as they do me? eh,
maybe its just the fact that I'm jaded as hell. Thank G-d for the
ignore list option in MS mail.), I thought it was important
enough to agree that the current IUR really is an excellent read
from cover to cover, and everyone should take a look.

>And while I'm raving about the publication, I'd also like to
>rave about Mark Cashman.

>Over, around and through the hysterics, name calling and
>character assassination by those claiming to be devoted to UFO
>research, Cashman has been quietly, and sometimes not so
>quietly, churning out the best stuff on the planet.

.... or for the readers digest version - as CG Jung said "real
work is completed in silence and strikes a chord in only the
minds of a very few."


Mark Cashman's piece is a great read, and from what I have seen
of his work, he is an example of how we should all try to
examine this stuff empirically and objectively. I may not always
agree with his conclusions, but to me, the fact that I can still
appreciate the work that he does and NOT agree with him, proves
that he is really doing things as they should be done and
deserves not just 'right on' rants, but genuine respect. Nice
work, Mark.

Tim






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                    Satanic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:50:59 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:52:43 -0400
Subject: Satanic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.co
>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:19:21 EDT
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>To: updates@globalserve.net

<snip>

>Not quite true. Richard Boylan has already been taken to court
>because of his "abduction research." He lost his license to
>practice in California because of it. It proved nothing about
>the reality of UFOs or abductions, but did demonstrate, at least
>some of the problems with hypnotic regression and researcher
>bias.

>I haven't even mentioned all those who believe in Satanic Ritual
>Abuse, who told horrifying tales both with and without hypnosis,
>and who in turn sued the doctors for malpractice. I believe that
>it was just announced that one "victim" won $2 million in a
>lawsuit in Illinois with more to follow.

>KRandle, Ph.D.
>http://www.randlereport.com

Kevin,

Congratulations on your Ph.D. I look forward to reading your new
book. I have followed the abduction enigma for many years but I
remain in the "questioning center" about it.

Your post makes me wonder what parallels there may be between
people reporting Alien Abduction and Satanic Ritual Abuse. I
haven't heard much about Satanic abuse in recent years and I
have been under the assumption that most cases proved groundless
and may have been the products of fundamental fears and
overactive imaginations. I have not been interested enough in
the subject to research it. My guess may be far from the truth.
I am trying to understand your above statement.

Have people told horrifying satanic ritual events without
hypnosis that have been proven factually true? What was the
nature of the plaintiff's charges in the lawsuit where one
"victim" won $2M in Illinois? Was that for the doctors leading
into a hypnotic fantasy? What parallels do you see between the
origin and etiology of the alien abduction enigma and cases of
Satanic abuse? Are any mentioned in the book?

I certainly don't condone lying but Glen Dennis sure did
a lousy job of it. He couldn't keep his lies straight. He
violated the first "principle" of a con artist.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                          BWW Media Alert 19990620

From: BufoCalvin@aol.com
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 09:17:20 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:53:37 -0400
Subject: BWW Media Alert 19990620


Bufo Calvin
P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Internet: BufoCalvin@aol.com
Website: <A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin">http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin
</A>
<A HREF="http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/bwnl">Bufo's WEIRD NEWS LINKS</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/bufosweirdworld">Link
to Amazon.com
</A>
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this
edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD provided that attribution is made to
http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin. It is good etiquette to check with
strangers before you e-mail them something. If you forward this, please make
sure it is clear that you are forwarding it).

June 20, 1999

This one is in rougher form and may be a bit shorter, due to it being
Father's Day.  A correspondent (if you'd like credit, please let me know)
gave some of the UK ones�didn't get a chance to verify them all.

As usual, let me know what you think at <A HREF="mailto:
bufocalvin@aol.com">BufoCalvin@aol.com
</A>.

On to the listings: Times are generally Pacific.

LIVE EVENTS (Lectures, conferences, etc.)

WHAT: 20th anniversary ROCKY MOUNTAIN UFO CONFERENCE (one of the major annual
conferences). Speakers include: Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle; Marilyn J. Sprinkle;
John Carpenter, UFO Abductions at Home and Abroad; Cristianne Quiros,
Alien-Human hybrids on Earth; Jack "Kewaunee" Lapseritis, the BIGFOOT/ET/UFO
Connection; Ann Druffel, How to Defend Yourself Against Alien Abduction;
Lyssa Royal, Lloyd Pye, Our Alien Ancestors; Richard Haines, CE-5: Close
Encounters of the Fifth Kind
WHEN: June 16 through June 20
WHERE: UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING
HOW MUCH: $85, plus workshop fees
CONTACT: 1-800-448-7801 ext. 2

WHAT: Lecture by Dr. Steven Greer of CSETI on ET Contact
WHEN: Thursday, June 24, 7:30 PM
WHERE: Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists. 1924 Cedar St. (@
Bonita). Berkeley. California
HOW MUCH: $10
CONTACT: Global View Communications, 510-540-6143

RADIO

Eddie Middleton's very popular show in the South, Nightsearch, has a website
at
<A HREF="http://listen.to/nightsearch">http://listen.to/nightsearch<;/A>.
Starting soon, the new website at
<A HREF="http://www.nightsearch.net/">http://www.nightsearch.net/<;/A>.
Unfortunately, no streaming audio. Sundays from 2:00 to 4:00 PM (Pacific).
The call-in line is 901-365-1430.

Don Ecker, of UFO MAGAZINE, hosts STRANGE DAZE on the Liberty Works. It can
be heard on streaming Real Audio at
<A
HREF="http://www.broadcast.com/radio/talk/lwrn">http://www.broadcast.com/radio
/talk/lwrn
</A>.

Mike Jarmus, REALITY AND BEYOND, 7:00 PM Sundays,
<A HREF="http://spectrum.orn.com/omega.ram">http://spectrum.orn.com/omega.ram
</A>. Streaming audio available

Sunday, June 20, 7:00 PM, DR. COLM a. KELLEHER, National Institute for
Discovery Science

ART BELL - DREAMLAND
Currently, the most popular talk show on this area.
<A HREF="http://www.artbell.com/">http://www.artbell.com/<;/A>. Live streaming
audio (and video) available.

JEFF RENSE - SIGHTINGS
Jeff is well-versed on the topics, but likes to let the guests speak,
resulting in one of the best radio shows on these topics. You can hear Real
Audio of the show, and there are archives as well. Go to
<A HREF="http://www.sightings.com/">http://www.sightings.com/<;/A> for more
information. The show is on at 7:00 PM Pacific Monday through Friday, and
8:00 PM Pacific on Sunday. You can hear it anywhere through your computer.
Please note that Jeff also often covers topics which I do not consider
relevant to this list. To subscribe to the Jeff Rense Weekly E-news (which
includes articles and a complete guest listing), e-mail (subject: Subscribe)
<A HREF="mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net">mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net</A>.

Tuesday, June 22, 7:00 PM, UFO*BC Monthly UFO/paranormal in Canada report
Wednesday, June 23, 7:00 PM, Michael Lindemann, Weekly UFO/World report;
Donna Seebo, intuitive guidance
Thursday, June 24, 7:00 PM, Dr. Bruce Goldberg (perhaps best known for doing
hypnotic progressions into future lives) on astral voyages

PAUL WILLIAMS & SCOTT CARR: UFO DESK
This New York show has been around for years, but is now available on
streaming audio. The website is
<A
HREF="http://www.escape.com/~paulw/ufodesk.html">http://www.escape.com/~paulw/
ufodesk.html
</A>. It runs at 8:00 PM (Pacific) on Sundays.

JEFF MISHLOVE AND THE VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY
Webcast every weekday at 8:00 PM for two hours, with a repeat at 10:00 PM.
Webcast at
<A HREF="http://www.wisdomradio.com/">http://www.wisdomradio.com/<;/A>.

ERSKINE OVERNIGHT
Webcast 9:00 PM to Midnight with an immediate repeat at Talkamerica.com
Monday: Richard Webster on Spirit Guides & Angel Guardians
Tuesday: Dr, Michael Newton life between lives
Wednesday: David John Oates--Reverse Speech
Thursday: Norio Hayakawya ---Secrets of Area 51
Friday: Felicia Adler---Master Dating

TELEVISION

A&E (USA)

BBC 1 (UK)
Sunday, June 20, 10:35 PM (GMT), EVERYMAN (faith healers, including Jack
Temple, Stephen Turoff, and Geoff Boltwood)

CBS
Friday, June 26, 9:00 PM, UNSOLVED MYSTERIES (includes Bigfoot and a psychic
healer)

CHANNEL 4 (UK)
Sunday, June 20, 8:00 PM (GMT), SECRETS OF THE STONES (Stonehenge)

THE HISTORY CHANNEL (USA)

Tuesday, June 22, 5:00 PM, ANCIENT ALIENS (ancient astronaut evidence)
Tuesday, June 22, 9:00 PM, ANCIENT ALIENS (ancient astronaut evidence)
Wednesday, June 23, 1:00 AM, ANCIENT ALIENS (ancient astronaut evidence)

THE LEARNING CHANNEL (USA)

Thursday, June 24, 6:00 PM, BIGFOOT (John Waters)
Thursday, June 24, 9:00 PM, BIGFOOT (John Waters)
Next Sunday, June 27, 8:00 PM, UFOS: FIFTY YEARS OF DENIALS
Next Sunday, June 27, 9:00 PM, UFOS: UNCOVERED: ARE ALIENS HERE?
Next Sunday, June 27, 10:00 PM, UFOS UNCOVERED: DARK SECRETS (includes pilot
UFO sightings and Area 51)
Next Sunday, June 27, 11:00 PM, UFOS: FIFTY YEARS OF DENIALS
Next Monday, June 28, 12:00 AM, UFOS: UNCOVERED: ARE ALIENS HERE?
Next Monday, June 28, 1:00 AM, UFOS UNCOVERED: DARK SECRETS (includes pilot
UFO sightings and Area 51)
Next Wednesday, June 30, 7:00 PM, STRANGE SCIENCE: UNUSUAL PEOPLE (includes
spontaneous human combustion and psychic artists)
Next Thursday, July 1, 1:00 AM, STRANGE SCIENCE: UNUSUAL PEOPLE (includes
spontaneous human combustion and psychic artists)
Next Thursday, July 1, 10:00 PM, STRANGE SCIENCE: MYSTERIOUS SKIES (includes
UFOs)
Next Friday, July 2, 1:00 AM, STRANGE SCIENCE: MYSTERIOUS SKIES (includes
UFOs)

LOCAL CABLE (USA)
BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED (I'm short on time this week, so I'm going to list it
the way it was sent to me...trimmed down for dates only):
SUNDAY CH 56 1:30 AM MANHATTAN NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORK NY
JUNE 20,1999 BETTY,BOB,BECKY ANDREASSON LUCA A four part series on how there
family survived multiple abduction experiences. They are the family that many
books have been written on there experience such as The Andreasson Legacy,
also The Andreasson Affair. 'AWESOME SHOWS' DON'T MISS"
JUNE 27.1999 *PART 2 OF THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY

SUNDAY CH35/80/96 930PM CABLEVISION OF WOODBURY NY
JUNE 27.1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PART 3 ABDUCTIONS

MONDAY CH27 10AM CABLEVISION OF RIVERHEAD NY
JUNE 28.1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PART 4 ABDUCTIONS

MONDAY CH 59/37 11PM CABLEVISION OF YONKERS NY
JUNE 28,1999ABDUCTIONS PART 4

TUESDAY CH 34 830PM CABLEVISION OF YORKTOWN HEIGHTS NY
JUNE 29, 1999 ABDUCTIONS PART 4

TUESDAY CH 6 830 PM COMMUNITY TV OF SANTE FE, NEW MEXICO
JUNE 29.1999 JACKIE KANTOR SPIRITUALIST

TUESDAY,
JUNE QUEENS QPTV CH 56 10PM

WEDNESDAY CH 12 830PM GATEWAY ACCESS 12 SPRING CREEK NY
JUNE 30, 1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PART 1 ABDUCTIONS

WEDNESDAY PAC 8 OF LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO CH 8 4PM
Various paranormal topics

WEDNESDAY CH12 MINNESOTA CABLE ACCESS TRAC 12 4PM&1130PM
JUNE 30.1999 TONY "THE BARD" IZZO  "POET" SINGER" COMPOSER

THURSDAY CH 25 5PM CABLEVISION OF HAUPPAGUE NY

THURSDAY CH 27 10 AM LTV OF EASTHAMPTON NY
JUNE 24, 1999 ABDUCTIONS PT 4

FRIDAYS CH 8 9PM PAC 8 TV OF LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO
JUNE 25, 1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PT 3 ABDUCTIONS

FRIDAYS CH 99 930PM CABLEVISION OF BROOKHAVEN NY
JUNE 25, 1999 ERICH VON DANIKEN "AUTHOR" CHARIOT OF THE GODS"

TO CONTACT JANET OR TO BE A GUEST ON HER TV SHOW
WRITE TO: BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED
JANET RUSSELL
POB 311
MEDFORD NY 11763
EMAIL: Rosebuds6@aol.com
Website: http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html
Beyond The Unexplained with Janet Russell

MTV (USA)

THE SCIENCE CHANNEL

New schedule again, since March 29.
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 9:00 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE (don't know
which one)
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 9:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Weekdays, 10:00 AM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 5:00 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 5:30 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Weekdays,6:00 PM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Every day but Monday and Sunday, 1:00 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Every day but Monday and Sunday, 1:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Tuesdays through Saturdays, 2:00 AM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 9:00 AM and 9:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S
MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 5:00 PM and 5:30 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S
MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
Saturdays, OUT OF THIS WORLD all day long

THE SCI-FI CHANNEL (US Feed)

Tuesday, June 22, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4033
Wednesday, June 23, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4034
Thursday, June 24, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4035
Friday, June 25, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #4036

SPACE (Canada)
 ___________________________

This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!"
____________________________






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                                 Time Travel

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:23:38 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:58:16 -0400
Subject: Time Travel


Hi,

A note for UK members mostly. Channel 4 TV screen the one hour
programme about Time Travel at 2 am (Sunday Night/Monday AM
20/21 June). It was made and first aired last year but if you
missed it first time round and are an insomniac do watch.
Otherwise get the VCR out.  Its a debate style featuring half a
dozen assorted 'TT nuts' - eg Miles Johnston and myself along
with one of the witnesses who claimed she spent a night in a
French hotel 80 years in the past (see my book 'Time Travel or
my article in Fate 'Night in a phantom hotel'). Theres also a
guy who has built a time machine in a garage under a railway
bridge and brought it into the studio for a trial run.

It clashes with the Indians and the Mariners live on Channel 5 -
which I wont miss. I'll use the time machne and tune in last
week instead. But if you missed this last year and can get
Channel 4 it is quite a laugh at times and conspiracy riddled at
others.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Bluehare Dark Peak <bluehare24@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:29:45 GMT
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:06:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

[Non-Subscriber? Post and 'as is' --ebk]

ATTENTION UFOLOGISTS
A MESSAGE FROM GENIUS LOKI FOLLOWS

We are a group of people, active in UFO hoaxing since
the mid 80s, and going under the collective name of Genius Loki.
Some reading this document may think hoaxing is unnacceptible
a waste of time which could be put to better use
investigating �UFOs.� Show us a UFO and we will happily
investigate it!

We believe that if ufologists are unable to
determine that a case is hoaxed or not then they should stick
to watching sci-fi.. Stupidity within the subject of UFOlogy
has reached new peaks of intensity during the last two years.
The latest example is how the so-called Sheffield Incident/Howden
Moors UFO Crash has been promoted by certain
individuals.

This is not the place to go into the specifics of the case.
Many will be familiar with it already and  it has
been widely featured on UFO Updates and UFO
Magazine. Several websites have also featured the case
in depth. From our point of view it had been
satisfactorily solved.

But there are those who will not see reason
and instead see saucers and conspiracy everywhere. A
ufologist, Max Burns, had become
unhealthily obsessed with the Sheffield Incident. He
theorised that a UFO had been present that night and was
responsible for shooting down a Tornado jet, flown by
an Italian NATO crew from RAF Coningsby. Despite
having no evidence for these allegations Burns further
theorised that the crash had been covered up by the
Government who had also initiated a "dirty tricks
campaign" against Burns and others. To add idiocy to
stupidity Burns also alleged that some British UFOlogists
were undercover secret agents, acting as part of the cover-up.

As time went on it became clear that Burns was prepared to
manipulate facts to promote his fanciful version of
the Sheffield Incident. Evidence of this is
abundant and can be found most recently on UFOUpdates
where Dr Clark analysed Burns' recent BUFORA lecture.

According to Dr David Clark's investigation of the
Howden Moors/Sheffield Incident there was no evidence
to indicate either a Tornado had crashed or
that a UFO had been involved. Nor did Dr Clark
find evidence of a cover-up. As far as we could see,
Clark's investigation was comprehensive and
exhaustive. The case was closed - but NOT apparently
for Max Burns.

Since the case became public in 1997 we have been
watching developments with interest and disbelief. As
part of our hoaxing experiments we decided to see
just how good a researcher Burns and his supporters were
and devised a scenario which would test their  investigative
powers. It will be necessary to use
Burns' emails more or less in full to demonstrate the
depths of his credulity. Emails sent by Genius Loki personnel,
besides the initial lure, have been paraphrased for
brevity.

Initially we made ourselves thoroughly aware of the case
by studying material originated by Burns and Clark and
their supporters, and by observing email debate on a
number of Internet sites. Burns was emailed from an
anonymous source on 20 March 1999. The source claimed
to be a member of a crack military/SAS team
involved in part of the Howden Moors event. The email
sent to Burns read:

"Dear Max Burns

My daughter, who has a keen interest in the matter of
UFOs, has recently shown me several articles from UFO
Magazine relating to the "Sheffield Incident."
As a result of reading the varying accounts of what
happened I have tracked you down via the Internet and
the material you have published there. Max, I must
congratulate you on the thorough research you have
done. But I think I may be able to add to it.
In March 1997 I was a member of, for want of a better
phrase, a "special forces" unit. This unit was a regional
based squad with close links to all the emergency
services. At 2200 hours GMT we were called to a shout
on the moors to the west of Sheffield. Our briefing, given
en route in the chopper, was to secure and guard a crash
site until a larger unit arrived from Hereford. My six
man team landed at a location on a remote part of the
moors where we were met by a senior police officer and
a mountain rescue official. What had taken place was
obvious - a military jet had crashed. There were pieces
scattered around and a large piece of fuselage was lying
part submerged in the peat bog. Several armed
policemen were guarding the area and others were
bringing in pieces of the plane from the surrounding
moorland.
The pilot was still strapped into the cockpit but was
clearly dead. Of the co-pilot there was no sign;
presumably he had ejected. The police were picked up
by a force chopper shortly after we arrived but the
mountain rescue guy stayed with us. We secured the site
and waited. It was clear something unusual had taken
place that night because the moors to the E, SE and S of
us were criss-crossed by people and vehicles until well
past 0300 hours.
You must understand that at that time we had no idea of
the cause of this event. We were just there to do a job of
work and we idly speculated about the stupidity of RAF
pilots. At approx. 0330 hours two Chinook helicopters
arrived from the Southwest, and several special forces
troops disembarked, together with a drop of a small
bulldozer. We exchanged information - i.e. that no one
had been to the site to the site since we arrived, and we
were taken out shortly afterwards. Our unit went to the
Gulf area until July '97 and I heard no more about the
matter. Indeed, I wouldn't have given this incident a
second thought had it not been for my daughter's
magazines. We were routinely sent out at all hours of the
day and the night to perform the oddest tasks so this one
was certainly not out of the ordinary. But my interest
was stimulated and I began to realise that this was no
ordinary plane crash. So I made inquiries with some of
my contacts still in the service (I left in mid'97 following
an 'accident' on the live ranges at Otterburn) and it
seems that you are on the right lines.
What I have gleaned may only be a rumour but I was
told that a Tornado did crash on the moors west of
Sheffield but that its crash had an unusual cause.
Several Tornadoes had been scrambled that same night
to intercept two "unknowns". One was followed out over
the North Sea before giving its pursuers the slip. The
second was chased over the Peak District. Orders were
apparently given to open fire on the craft as it hovered
but before the Tornadoes could engage a blue beam shot
from the object (said to be "a small, black
diamond-shaped unknown") and one of the planes just
exploded in the sky and broke apart. The other was
vectored to a safe distance but when it returned the
"unknown" had gone.
As a result of this information I decided to satisfy my
curiosity and took a trip out to the Peak District moors
to see what remained. I reasoned that if it had been an
"ordinary" crash there should still be evidence left
around, just as there are with the many other aircraft
wrecks in that area. The site is far more remote than I
had thought and it took quite a while to reach it on foot.
When I got there I was surprised to find there was no
immediately visible trace of the crash, but after scouting
around the outlying area I found several marks where
parts of the aircraft had impacted and more significantly
several split and scorched gritstone boulders. Although I
could find not one piece of aircraft I suspect a few hours
with a metal detector would come up with the goods.
How much of this will be of use to you I don't know Max,
you seem to be making a pretty good stab of getting to
the truth of the matter, despite the actions of various
undercover operatives who are in the pay of the
Intelligence Services. If there is any way I can be of
assistance please let me know but remember that I am
still bound by the Official Secrets Act and cannot
divulge anything which could reveal my true identity to
you. There is an incredible amount of secrecy
surrounding this incident and you should be very, very
careful with your inquiries.
If you are interested enough I would be pleased to meet
you somewhere and take you up to the crash site (on
certain conditions), but I have to be very careful."

This email took approximately fifteen minutes to create,
with little or no forethought. The intention was to set the
scene, cast the ground bait and see what happened.
Within two days Burns replied:

"This email comes to you via my ghost email address, and
if we are to have any more communication regarding
this matter it would be best if  you used this address for
security reasons.
I thank you for coming forward with some of the finer
details regarding the night of  the 24th March 1997, As
you are aware as I am, that there is an apparent extreme
amount of secrecy involved in protecting the true facts
about what had occurred
between the time frame of 21.45 & 22.06 that night.
It is obvious from your style of writing that you are from
a military  background.
As am I with members of my family serving in the Air
Force and Army through three generations.
I have come under attack as you are more than likely
aware from under cover operatives regarding this case,
and they have become quite hostile in there attempts to
discredit my self. (Standard intelligence move) also my
research into the incident with dirty tricks campaigns
and muck raking all standard stuff.
Obviously I wish to visit ground zero as soon as possible
in the hope of obtaining
1.Wreckage for metallurgic testing to confirm that the
wreckage if any recovered is of the same type of
materials, as used in the Tornado F3 interceptor.
Preferably with some paint on fragments to confirm
paint colour and type as used in the above.
2.Scorched stones for a carbon date testing to confirm
the approx. date of the scorching.
3.Soil samples for obvious reasons, as well as
photographic evidence of
the scene.
You have not given me any reason to doubt your
sincerity in this matter, in-deed the detail's you supplied
to myself in the initial correspondence. What I
personally consider from a very meticulous man and a
keen observer with an eye to details.
Call it caution, call it paranoia as a possible scenario,
as I do not know you. This could be a ploy by
intelligence to take me out to an old, World War two
crash site.
So that I may be discredited further down the line.
However I usually go on my gut instincts I would be
lying to you if I said that I did not have some
reservations
about your reasons and motivation for the offer of help
in this matter. I do feel that you are on the level. I hope
you are not offended, but I feel that you would more than
likely have been offended if I had not asked you this
question.
Why are you helping me?
I do know that the co-pilot was recovered,  by the police
just after 23.00 on or around the viaduct at Ladybower
reservoir. So I presume that the walk to ground zero is
within a seventy five minutes walk from the viaduct's at
Ladybower reservoir. Depending on the direction of
flight of the tornado and how many seconds before the
explosion which I presume is the first alleged by the
authority's sonic boom at 21.52, as I have not been able
at present to obtain the seismograph from that time
frame.
Obviously because the readings on that particular
seismograph would show a pattern that is not a
compression wave caused by a true sonic boom.
I also know that the co-pilot only just escaped with his
life due to the fact that he was soaking and stinking of
aviation fuel, as reported by a member of the air force
who works on jet engines.
Who was flagged down by the co-pilot while he was
travelling back from walking in the Welsh hills While
travelling in a mini towards Sheffield that night.
Some other questions that I would be interested in
obtaining answers to are
1.The name of the senior police officer?
2.The name of the mountain rescue attendee? (probably
Ted Burton)
3.Which unit of the armed police response team were
present and where
they are based?
4.The name of the deceased  Pilot?
5.The name of the co-pilot?
I believe I am correct in my assertion that this was a
N.A.T.O tornado jet?
Which was launched from RAF Conningsby. (Italian air
crew)?
7. The registration number of the Tornado?
8.To what location the wreckage was transported for the
obvious thorough post crash examination?
9. Was any part of the top soil removed or replaced?
I presume that as the Chinooks came from Hereford that
they were loaded with S.A.S.
I know that you more than likely do not have all the
answers that I require, but at least I have apprised you
Of where I am coming from regarding this matter.
I can only assure you of my agreement to meet certain
conditions regarding the protection of your true
identity.As is the case of the radar operator from Linton
on Ouse who tracked the unknown outside the city of
Sheffield between the time frame of 21.55 to 22.05 the
second sonic event occurred at 22.06 I presume that this
was the unknown leaving the area. Due to the fact that
the radar track of the object was lost at 22.05.
At the risk of being discredited by the supposed
ufologists who are masquerading as researchers. The
agenda of the above mentioned people to spread
dis-information to confuse the issue, and to keep other
Researcher's at each other's throats. (The usual tactics deployed)
I even know who some of these people are as it has become
apparent what there agenda is and why due to the way that they
have had to behave.
In there joint efforts to discredit myself, almost exposing
themselves. Due to the fact that I am so close on this. It
does amuse myself that it must have been discussed at
some level regarding my claims and allegations
regarding this matter and they must be scratching heads
as to how I managed to piece it all together?
Part of it was the way it all turned nasty when I started
to claim that a tornado jet had crashed culminating in
the death of a pilot during the interception of an
unknown. I mulled it over and decided that this was
basically correct especially after the behaviour of so
called sceptics. When I made these claims. I have
refused to supply the name of the radar operator at risk
of being accused of being a liar etc. etc. etc..
I am available next weekend or at any date which is
suitable to yourself  please advise of what you need me
to comply with I do have a secure line and can supply
this number if you wish it?
What ever, your decision I thank you for contacting me I
know the great  personal risk you are taking. My word is
my bond, confidentiality assured.
Respectfully, Max Burns."

Readers should observe that Burns clearly believes
that the letter was sent by a military man -
'It is obvious from your style of writing that you are
from a military  background' -
purely on the strength of a few oblique Andy McNab-
style cliches, conjured up whilst the email was being put
together.
Although he has vague doubts as to the
veracity of the author he makes no real attempt to ask
meaningful questions which may have revealed or even
hinted at a hoax. Many of the questions Burns was
asking were ones to which he had already
claimed to have answers to! We chose not to reply
immediately, giving Burns time to do any checking of
the story. His next post was somewhat surprising:

"Hi,
I wondered if you still wish to proceed as discussed in
you previous post? Or perhaps you could supply me with
the grid references and I could make my own way up
there?
Or I could meet you in the LadyBower Inn on the Snake
Pass at a time and date
suitable to your self....? Please advice....if you do not
wish to have any more correspondence? I will
understand if that is the case...Max hanging on a
string..."

Hanging on a string........! We could virtually smell his
eagerness. There was no more doubt, Burns was clearly
hooked. We sent Burns another email message on 27 April
1999:

"Dear Max Burns,
�Contact as promised. I will have some available time
shortly and I am prepared to take you to the Tornado
crash site. I will meet you on 16 May 1999. I will be out
camping in the area for a few days preceding our
meeting, to check things out.
I will meet you at the Kings Tree car park (GR167939). I
will be there at exactly 13.00 hours, whatever the
weather. I will need to identify you. I suggest that you
carry a copy of that days London Times newspaper. For
certainty of identification you should stand facing the
reservoir, reading the paper. I will approach you and
make first contact with the phrase �Lovely day for a hike,
isnt it?� If I am not there at 13.00hrs this will indicate
that my security has been compromised in some way or
that I am in some other way uncertain about that site as
a meeting point. Wait until 13.15hrs to be sure. If I have
not arrived by that time I will meet you at: GR133969.
This location is within two miles of the Tornado crash
site. If this becomes necessary I will be there until
16.15hrs. Again for identification I suggest that when
you arrive at the rocks you sit and look back down the
valley, reading the London Times. I will then make
contact as before. Once I have met you I will take you to
the Tornado crash site. It may be useful for you to bring
the following items:
Spade/s/Metal detector/Geiger counter/Camera/s/Video
recorder/s/Voice recorder/s
and anything else you may need./I can show you the site
and traces of impact
known to me. These areas are remote and dangerous.
Even at this time of year. I suggest you dress
accordingly, bring waterproofs, plenty food and liquids
etc.
If you wish you may bring one or two other people with
you to validate your meeting and possibly to help in
locating the crash site at other times. This will be my
only contact.
Bluehare."

Max replied with a simple: "Thanks, I will be there."

Note again that there was no challenge, no attempt to
verify, just a simple acceptance. In the weeks between
this message and 16 May, Burns began to tell other
ufologists he had new information which he would
reveal soon. Clearly he was jumping the gun. Matthew
Williams, admitted crop circle hoaxer, joined
forces with Burns and began defending his position, also
claiming new information about the case. None
was forthcoming.
May 16th dawned bright and clear. A car containing
Burns and two other �truthseekers�  sped towards
the meeting place. They were ten minutes late in arriving
at the Kings Tree car park (having failed to even do
enough research even to realise it is closed to cars in the
summer months, but eventually driving there anyway!).
In true James Bond fashion Max stood overlooking the dam, reading
a copy of that days London Times. Just picture it!
Their car was plastered with alien and
UFO stickers - hardly the best way for anyone to about
meeting someone who could help them crack the
greatest secret in the universe! Needless to say their
contact failed to turn up at the resevoir. Burns and co. had clearly
expected him though as they had not come prepared for a
lengthy trek out to the moors in search of him at the
default meeting location. We decided to give Burns and
co. another try.
Another email was sent to Burns within hours of his return
from the Peak District on the night of May 16.  The email
queried what had happened to him, pointing out he had been
under constant observation and chiding
him for arriving in a car decked out with UFO stickers.
Burns replied:

"We were late arriving at the Kings Tree because the
police landrover stopped us and held us there for nearly
15 minutes while the woman cop decided if she was
going to let us past. Yes, I did not even consider the
stickers on my friends car, sorry......due to an ankle
injury incurred by one of my group, who was not dressed
correctly we had to abort and help him back to the
vehicle. much to my disappointment. I do appreciate the
risks you are taking, and urge you to consider another
meet even if I have to come alone...or meet you
somewhere else. Please reconsider, I can come alone,
you are right the stickers on the car was careless
considering what happened. I am committed to this
investigation and the truth of the matter, I have put
twenty seven months into this, at great expense to my
reputation.
Max Burns."

The words 'amateur' and 'rank' spring to mind here.

Burns - obviously keen to curry favour- replied again on
20 May.

"Dear BH..
I have some suggestions which I would like to make,
may I make them in a future post shortly? And If you
wish I can show you some of the progress that I have
made with regard to the situation.. e.g., flaws in the
cover story that can be proved.
Please advice
MB.."

We had now learned that Burns was due to speak at a
British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) meeting
shortly and decided to see what happened following that.
He was sent a short message telling him we would be
pleased to meet him again on the moors. We also upped
the stakes a little by suggesting that we had now
retrieved several pieces of metal from the alleged crash
and would still be pleased to take him to the site. He was
told he would be contacted again on June 19th with
directions for a June 20th meet.

Burn's BUFORA lecture came and went. Apparently
feeling was so strong within BUFORA about Burns that
several key members had resigned when he was given a
platform to speak. This did not deter the die-hard
extraterrestrial believers who run BUFORA. We sat
through his lecture but no new information was brought
forward. Burns did mention at the end of his lecture that
he had some new material which he hoped he could verify
soon, and it was clear it was his military contact he
was referring to. Not once did he hint that he was
suspicious about the source of this information, or
suggest that he suspected a hoax. The BUFORA lecture
was poorly attended and the audience gave him a hard
time, unable to accept his unsubstantiated claims.

Subsequently, Burns was emailed and told we would contact
him again on June 19. The final phase of the hoax had been
initiated. Burns had bit. And on 19th June he was sent these
instructions:

"Max Burns
Contact as promised. We can finish this tomorrow.
After the problems last time we must get it right.
This is what will happen if you wish to proceed.
Sunday June 20th
11.am Be at the public telephone box in the layby beside
the Ladybower reservoir (before the viaduct) grid ref
196864.
The 'phone will ring. Answer it. Do not speak other
than to acknowledge your presence or to answer any
questions I ask. Have a pen and paper to write down
instructions.
If, for some reason, the 'phone box is not working,
someone is using it or I am unable to call at that time:
11.30am Be at the public telephone box on Ashopton
Road, Bamford (opposite the signpost marked 'Bamford
Moor') grid ref 202849.
Follow instructions as for above.
Act on instructions given and we should have met
by mid-afternoon. Bring all you need. As I said before
I do not mind one other person being with you. But please
be careful with the car - it gives you away and with any luck
you will be travelling back with some interesting materials.
Please confirm receipt of, and intention to act on, this message,
immediately.
Bluehare.�

A return receipt arrived on the evening of June 19 via Derby
UFOlogist Omar Fowler, who clearly shares Max�s strange belief
system, and wanted to be in on the action.
On June 20th (curiously near the summer solstice, which requires a
sacrificial victim!) Burns was telephoned at the default phone box.
He answered and wrote down instructions based on the following
script read to him by an actor:

�Is that Max Burns?
Ok, hi, nice to speak to you at last.
Right, listen very carefully, I want to be on the
phone as briefly as possible, for obvious reasons.
The sack is buried. But not in the ground. It's in a stream. I don't
want to be at the location when you pull it out, for obvious
reasons. You must pull the sack out of the water and raise it above
your head. I'll have you under observation from the Grinah Stones.
As soon as I see you've got the sack ok I will come down to meet
you, then take you back up to the site and we can discuss
all this and what to do about it in detail. I have some ideas.
It's in a stream at the head of the Derwent Valley.
Listen carefully and follow these instructions. Are you ready?
Go to the Kings Tree car park where you were before and follow
the path up the valley bottom for about three and a half miles.
When you get to a point below the Shepherd's Meeting Stones
and the Grinah Stones, the path becomes indistinct. Make sure
you are following the stream at this point. On the left bank there
is a clear and obvious land slip where the rocks and
earth are exposed. This is approximately Grid Ref:143976.
The sack is in the stream at this point. It's a blue, plastic,
farmer's sack - pretty obvious when you are in the right place.
Do you understand?
Ok. I'll see you later.�

Two hours later Burns appeared in the Upper Derwent Valley,
wearing a luminous yellow top, and accompanied by an unknown man.
Burns had taken the message seriously and come fully equipped with -
unbelievably -  a metal detector! Burns studied the landscape carefully,
checking for the correct location.
The sack - there was a sack - was bright, almost luminous blue
was in about two feet of water and contained 20 kilos of scrap metal.
Despite frequent recourse to his notes and maps Burns and his friend
failed to locate the sack which could have contained the Ultimate Secret.
During his search Burns failed to make even rudimentary attempts to check if
if he was being watched. After a while the sight of two sad believers
floundering in rain and mud grew boring and so we withdrew.

The hoax was complete.

Please remember this hoax was not perpetrated by the 'Intelligence
Services', it was not perpetrated by the Freemasons, or indeed
any of the other bogeymen which Burns and his ilk believe
are involved in misleading British ufologists. It was done by ufologists,
for ufologists to demonstrate the ease with which it can be done.
At no time did Burns or any of his friends make any concerted attempt
to check out this improbable story.
What this hoax has demonstrated is the embarrassing ineptitude of UFO
believers and in particular the credulity of some extremists who are driven
purely by the will to believe - no matter how ludicrous the subject matter
or scenario they fed.

Caveat Lector!





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                                RIPT & MJ-12

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:51:41 +0200
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:10:09 -0400
Subject: RIPT & MJ-12


>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:22:44 -0500
>Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:37:37 -0500
>Subject: Re: RPIT Roswell Revisitation: The Next Step?

>Regarding...

>>From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
>>Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:03:46 EST
>>Subject: RPIT Roswell Revisitation: The Next Step?

>James wrote:

>>Further, RPIT has been able to read in part the official message held
>>in the hand of General Ramey in the four shots taken of him which
>>make reference to "victims of the crashed DISK being transported to
>>Fort Worth" from "Site Two" near Magdalena, N. Mexico, and further
>>appears to suggest or order the general to issue an announcement as
>>to a "weather balloon" cover-up.

>James,

>The 'Ramey telegram' may be indecipherable, however, as the
>printing consists of fixed spacing, this offers important clues
>to the probabilities.

<snip>

or,

>From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 19:56:51 EST
>Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 08:54:47 -0500
>Subject: RPIT Roswell Revisitation Report No. 1

>RPIT Roswell Revisitation Report No. 1

>PRIMARY PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this RPIT Report No. 1
>is to present the findings of RPIT (Roswell Photo Interpretation
>Team) photo analysts after five-months of intensive study of the
>Roswell "flying saucer" photos

<snip>

James & James & List,

Regarding the interpretation of the Ramey message, and for
instance the letterhead/seal interpretations, I thought I would
refer to the report to Congressman Steve Schiff having to do
with the Roswell incident ("GAO report", from United States
General Accounting Office), ' issued in 1995, and which I
happend to come across on the Web:

http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/maj12b.htm

and specifically referring to to Appendix 2:

http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/maj12b.htm#app2

Note that the word "flying disc" (disc with a "c") is being used
here. And, maybe Mr. R. Davis from NSA could help in providing
some info. on letterheads, etc.?

This report is probably known to many of the members of the List
already, but for new members the report could have some
interest.

According to the Web site, a copy of the report may be obtained
by calling (202) 512-6000 and referencing Document number
GAO/NSIAD-95-187.

Further, some months ago I watched a TV program on the Discovery
channel, showing the interpretation work on the Dead Sea
Scrolls. They were using a certain computer program to enhance
the letters' readability on the scanned book pages, or the
photos of these. That is, they were using a CAD program to
enlarge the letters, and then fill in the letters and their
fuzzy outlines with black. I don't know whether the RPIT members
have been using this method in their work, but in any case, the
results obtained from using this method will also depend on the
use of subjective judgements in some way or other.


Regards,
Asgeir








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                'Strange Days...Indeed' - Tonight: Stanton T.

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:48:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:48:48 -0400
Subject: 'Strange Days...Indeed' - Tonight: Stanton T.




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

On 'Strange Days... Indeed' tonight, Stanton T. Friedman,
author, researcher and sifter of things ufological.

Join co-host Jonn Kares and I on 'Strange Days...Indeed' as we
discuss with Stan the recent conferences in Istanbul, San Marino
the current state of ufology and any other aspect of the phenomena
to which Stan's amazingly agile mind-mouth combination cares to
take us...


The program starts at 11:00pm EST on

1010 CFRB AM - 50,000 watts 'Clear-Channel'

6070khz Shortwave

and you can listen via Media Player at:

www.cfrb.com/

You'll need to access the site using Internet Explorer since
Media Player seems to choke using any version of Netscape -
thanks Mr. Bill!


To call the program 'live', dial:

On-Air    416-872-1010
          1-800-561-CFRB [all over North America]
          *TALK [local mobiles]





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                       Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency'

From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:07:06 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:09:17 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The Roots Of Complacency'


>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:14:47 -0700
>From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@bellsouth.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: 'The Roots Of Complacency'

Quoting from Dr Hynek ...

>It was a malady which appeared to plunge all who encountered it,
>EXCEPT the witnesses, into a deadly stupor.  Such a malady, or
>perhaps a virulent virus of apathy and indifference to duty,
>could immobilize cities and a whole country.  Of course, we
>don't know what the Boomerang was really about for:

>---the Police and other law enforcement officers were derelict
>and failed in their duty to assist the many who called for fear
>and danger, as well as in awe and wonder.

>---the FAA utterly failed to be concerned for air safety, flight
>rules, navigation lights, when told that some utterly strange
>and possibly menacing object was cruising close over streets and
>house.

>---the Military was derelict by not attending to public safety
>and matters of National Defense (the country could have been
>subtely invaded!)

>---the Scientists failed to uphold their "Hippocratic" oath of
>science: they were derelict in following the quest in following
>an outstanding mystery.

>---the media, well, where were they?  Truly derelict always avid
>news hounds, rushing to their typewriters or microphones to rush
>the news to the world (good, bad and trivial), but where were
>they?  Hardly any of the 50 States heard the Boomerang story.

>Why?  Utterly indifferent and apathetic?  If so, why?

Hmmm.  Looking at a much narrower example of similar behavior,
quoting from the following UFO*BC incident written up in full
at:

   http://www.ufobc.org/landing.htm

>Unable to drive up to the craft they returned to the parking
>lot entrance. Leaving the engine running, each of them picked
>up a piece of wood from the ground and then set off up the bank
>towards the UFO Neither of them felt afraid, only curious. As
>they got closer they could see that the vehicle was about 15
>feet across and eight feet high to the top of the illuminated
>dome. Which K. S. said was similar in appearance to a BB pellet.
>What was more unusual was a black oval shaped "ball" that was
>bouncing around wildly within the translucent dome. It was from
>here that the light was emerging.

>About five yards from the craft a thought suddenly popped into
>each man's head, "leave it alone". With that, a loud klaxon like
>noise was emitted from the craft, about every four seconds.
>Without a word each man dropped his club, turned around and
>walked back to the truck.

How many times have I read about UFO incident reports, like the
above, in which otherwise curious witnesses are suddenly and
inexplicably rendered disinterested, such that they cease any
further investigation?  The above is the only case I happen to
have bookmarked.

It makes one wonder, at odd hours of the nite, just how
voluntary is this "utterly indifferent and apathetic" attitude
of the authorities, this "deadly stupor" railed against by Hynek.

Surely external control, even if possible in localized cases,
could never be applied to groups at large?  No, why attribute
to external causes what is so easily explained by basic human
nature?  Most folks spend their lives in a disinterested stupor,
after all.

Surely those magnificent men in their flying triangle machines
don't have that much control.  Surely we understand them well
enough to be confident of that.

Nah ... utterly unfounded speculation.
I guess I read too much science fiction.
Sorry I brought it up.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:18:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:21:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:32:32 -0400

>>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:20:33 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:22:35 -0400

>>Greg,

>>I'm confused. I could have sworn that you had posted to this
>>thread words to the effect that you were having a hard time
>>getting Budd to turn his many alien script samples over to
>>anyone for analysis. Now you're saying it was done two years
>>ago?

>>Just asking for clarification.

>Dennis,

>Budd readily agreed to give his alien writing samples to Stewart
>Appelle (for analysis in JUFOS), when I suggested he do it. It
>took him a while to get them sent, but he did do it. I've posted
>about this here several times. I don't know why you don't
>remember.

>Greg Sandow


Greg,

Because I'm not always in Optimal Mental Acuity Mode, or OMAM,
as Dave Rudiak would have told you if only you'd asked!

Has it really been two years since we discussed this? My God,
how time flies! My apologies to you, Budd, and everyone else.
Really! (And I did say I was confused, didn't I?)

A personal e-mail precedes this; you'll note from its context
that I mistook the e-mail I was replying to as one that had been
posted to this thread. Now see, via OMAM, that it was privately
posted. OMAM good!

Tell ya'll what I'm gonna do. I'm off to the Rockies next week,
where I'm gonna climb a mountain (or at least a high foothill),
contemplate while listening to a little Van Morrison in the
headphones (Astral Weeks, Moondance & Avalon Sunset), and chill
out on anything but Coors. When I come down from the mount (or
hill, as the case may be), everything's gonna be copacetic and
supercalifragilisticexpealidocious (hyphenate that one, Errol!),
unless I spelled the latter wrong. Ufology will be a bona fide
respected science and all ufologists therein right on spot.
Arnold will have seen what he saw. Money will be readily
available for any research project under the sun, I'll be a
better person, and we'll all live happily (together) ever after.

Well, the picture won't be quite _that_ rosy, of course, but
there are behind the scenes indications that some things (if not
all) _are_ getting rosier. Some money is seeping in, some good
projects have already been funded, and a few more are looming on
the horizon. Can't comment on specifics at this point, but some
promising projects are definitely afoot.

This is not meant as a cynical tease on my part. The above
promising projects are in various stages of progression and
completion. Some extend over a period of years. Science is slow
by nature.

Not necessarily as slow as my memory, but slow nonetheless.

A happy and fruitful summer to everyone.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:18:04 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:25:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


Re the following post ...

>From: Bluehare Dark Peak <bluehare24@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:29:45 GMT
>:
>:

>[Non-Subscriber? Post and 'as is' --ebk]

>ATTENTION UFOLOGISTS
>A MESSAGE FROM GENIUS LOKI FOLLOWS

>We are a group of people, active in UFO hoaxing since
>the mid 80s, and going under the collective name of Genius Loki.

<rest snipped>

Not that I support Max Burns (frankly I haven't followed that
case), but why should we believe the above post any more than
the purported hoaxed email they claim they sent to Burns? They
admit they're into hoaxing, after all.

Any post by a group with such a self-congratulatory name is
immediately suspect anyway, at least to this Texan.

My 2 cents,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                 Re: Hypnotic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]

From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:26:28 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:30:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]


>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:50:59 -0700
>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.co
>>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:19:21 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

><snip>

>>Not quite true. Richard Boylan has already been taken to court
>>because of his "abduction research." He lost his license to
>>practice in California because of it. It proved nothing about
>>the reality of UFOs or abductions, but did demonstrate, at least
>>some of the problems with hypnotic regression and researcher
>>bias.

>>I haven't even mentioned all those who believe in Satanic Ritual
>>Abuse, who told horrifying tales both with and without hypnosis,
>>and who in turn sued the doctors for malpractice. I believe that
>>it was just announced that one "victim" won $2 million in a
>>lawsuit in Illinois with more to follow.

>>KRandle, Ph.D.
>>http://www.randlereport.com

>Kevin,

>Congratulations on your Ph.D. I look forward to reading your new
>book. I have followed the abduction enigma for many years but I
>remain in the "questioning center" about it.

>Your post makes me wonder what parallels there may be between
>people reporting Alien Abduction and Satanic Ritual Abuse.

<snip>

I suspect that there are many parallels and I still wonder why
US researchers are so enamoured by these very questionable
hypnotic techniques. Although therapy/visiting the shrink is
rather more popular in the US, in the very imperfect UK 95% of
us are against the use of hypnosis in terms of close encounters
experiences (and more besides!!).

No group in Northern England sanctions is as far as I can tell
and this has been in force for many years - which is perhaps
why we don't have as many 'alien abductions' over 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                  Re: Satanic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:36:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:33:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]


>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:50:59 -0700
>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>Have people told horrifying satanic ritual events without
>hypnosis that have been proven factually true?

<snip>

>What parallels do you see between the
>origin and etiology of the alien abduction enigma and cases of
>Satanic abuse?

Sorry I can't go into more detail at the moment as I'm going to
be off line for the next couple of days, but check out a few
Magonia articles on Satanic Ritual Abuse and their relationship
to UFO abductions:

www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/sra.html

www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/satanupdate.html

www.magonia.demon.co.uk./90/folklore.html

and remember that these sorts of claims (Satanic and abduction) can
wreck people's lives.

--
John Rimmer
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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:53:23 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:38:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Bluehare Dark Peak <bluehare24@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:29:45 GMT
>:
>:

>[Non-Subscriber? Post and 'as is' --ebk]

>ATTENTION UFOLOGISTS
>A MESSAGE FROM GENIUS LOKI FOLLOWS

>We are a group of people, active in UFO hoaxing since
>the mid 80s, and going under the collective name of Genius Loki.
>Some reading this document may think hoaxing is unnacceptible
>a waste of time which could be put to better use
>investigating �UFOs.� Show us a UFO and we will happily
>investigate it!

>We believe that if ufologists are unable to
>determine that a case is hoaxed or not then they should stick
>to watching sci-fi.. Stupidity within the subject of UFOlogy
>has reached new peaks of intensity during the last two years.
>The latest example is how the so-called Sheffield Incident/Howden
>Moors UFO Crash has been promoted by certain
>individuals.

>This is not the place to go into the specifics of the case.
>Many will be familiar with it already and it has
>been widely featured on UFO Updates and UFO
>Magazine. Several websites have also featured the case
>in depth. From our point of view it had been
>satisfactorily solved.

>But there are those who will not see reason
>and instead see saucers and conspiracy everywhere. A
>ufologist, Max Burns, had become
>unhealthily obsessed with the Sheffield Incident. He
>theorised that a UFO had been present that night and was
>responsible for shooting down a Tornado jet, flown by
>an Italian NATO crew from RAF Coningsby. Despite
>having no evidence for these allegations Burns further
>theorised that the crash had been covered up by the
>Government who had also initiated a "dirty tricks
>campaign" against Burns and others. To add idiocy to
>stupidity Burns also alleged that some British UFOlogists
>were undercover secret agents, acting as part of the cover-up.

>As time went on it became clear that Burns was prepared to
>manipulate facts to promote his fanciful version of
>the Sheffield Incident. Evidence of this is
>abundant and can be found most recently on UFOUpdates
>where Dr Clark analysed Burns' recent BUFORA lecture.




Dear Friends,

I have read the above with interest and found it to be the most
bizarre set-up I have read in ages, but I knew this was on the
cards. These people who were at the BUFORA lecture looked pretty
innocent to me' they were probably revelling in their own self
delight on their purposeful entrapment of Max. (Thank god I took
pictures at the lecture)

When Max first received this e-mail he did infact circulate this
to all on his mailing list and looked for reaction. I told him
it stank and was maybe a set-up by those who wish to try and
publicly humiliate him. (Boy was I right)

Call this research do you? I think this is now the lowest form
of ufology we can get. We are now scraping the barrel and how
sad I am when writing this.

How long must this BS carry on? You talk of Max and him hoaxing
this whole incident, I think you have to read your own e-mail,
wasn't it yourselves who made contact with Max regarding a crash
site? Wasn't it yourselves who told Max that you were part of a
military team who had knowledge of this incident? Wasn't it
yourselves who led Max to believe the BS you were writing?

I think that you instigated the whole BS for some weird reason
and for who's benefit? You say for the betterment of UK Ufology?
BS that is a total cop-out and you know it, what makes my
stomach churn about people like yourselves is the fact, that
this just isn't about the Sheffield Incident, but your petty
hang up of those who have a believe in the ETH.

Who appointed you the self guardians of ufolgy? Who gave you
this high & mighty platform? Who the hell are you to judge all
UK ufologists who happen to believe in the ETH as mad hat
believers and crackpots? When will the likes of yourselves climb
down from this high horse you have been sat on for some time!

Do you have day time jobs? Who funds this crap?

Does anyone blame Max for answering your poxy e-mails? If you
had spent 27 months on a case and then you received such info,
would you ignore it? Oh what a sad day this is' this really is
the death of uk ufology as we know it, I can understand why
people are leaving the field of research with BS like this being
churned out.

The jam: Going underground:






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                      Re: Time Travel [Caution: 'umour]

From: From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:33:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:03:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Time Travel [Caution: 'umour]


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Time Travel
>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:23:38 +0100

>Hi,

>A note for UK members mostly. Channel 4 TV screen the one hour
>programme about Time Travel at 2 am (Sunday Night/Monday AM
>20/21 June). It was made and first aired last year but if you
>missed it first time round and are an insomniac do watch.
>Otherwise get the VCR out.  Its a debate style featuring half a
>dozen assorted 'TT nuts' - eg Miles Johnston and myself along
>with one of the witnesses who claimed she spent a night in a
>French hotel 80 years in the past (see my book 'Time Travel or
>my article in Fate 'Night in a phantom hotel'). Theres also a
>guy who has built a time machine in a garage under a railway
>bridge and brought it into the studio for a trial run.

>It clashes with the Indians and the Mariners live on Channel 5 -
>which I wont miss. I'll use the time machne and tune in last
>week instead. But if you missed this last year and can get
>Channel 4 it is quite a laugh at times and conspiracy riddled at
>others.

>Best wishes,

>Jenny Randles

Dear and Gentle List Members est Al,

Especially you, Al.

First, it is common knowledge that British TV is run by the
Government. And in Britain, the Government consists of people in
wigs.  They must all be on chemo or something.  Either that or
most British goobers have naked pates (accent grave, or is it
agar, agoo, ague)...  whatever.

So Ms. Randles, this means that your TV program (which is
spelled incorrectly by the by... it is spelled PROGRAM not
PROGRAMME). Cheeses lady, we can dress yous up but we can't take
yous anywhere!

Anyway, people in wigs usually lie like rugs so they can't be
trusted even when they are walked all over.  And besides,
British goobers are royal goobers.  And everyone knows these
people are inbred.  Which is why most alien abductees are not
British.  The aliens need fresh meat and you people are not
acceptable.  Stale.  Too stale. A little stiff, too.  You people
should try a little Gripple... or maybe even a lot of Gripple.

Where was I?  Oh, yah, uh I was about to talk about time travel,
or "TT" as you refer to it.  Please read MY book, "Tea, Square &
Proud" and go to page 598, where you will see proven beyond a
shadow of a doubt, that TT is impossible.  This is because of
the "Enigma Conundrum" which states that no one may go forward
without going backward first and versa vice.  It's the law.  So
therefore, TT is an oxymoron.  Like "regressive hypnosis."

Dr. Jaime Gesundt,
Authority on time, travel and fresh wines - we will sell no wine,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 00:10:47 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:07:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:19:21 EDT
>Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:32:34 -0400
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

Previously, I had offered:

>>Likewise, we can only hope that Jenny's concerns about impending
>>lawsuits against ufologists are well founded. Why? Because, for
>>damages to be proven, the "memories" dredged up by the use of
>>hypnosis would have to be accepted (at some point) as fact; not
>>only by the "victim" but by the courts as well.

Kevin's reply:

>Not quite true. Richard Boylan has already been taken to court
>because of his "abduction research." He lost his license to
>practice in California because of it. It proved nothing about
>the reality of UFOs or abductions, but did demonstrate, at least
>some of the problems with hypnotic regression and researcher
>bias.

>I haven't even mentioned all those who believe in Satanic Ritual
>Abuse, who told horrifying tales both with and without hypnosis,
>and who in turn sued the doctors for malpractice. I believe that
>it was just announced that one "victim" won $2 million in a
>lawsuit in Illinois with more to follow.

Hi, Kevin (or should I say "Dr. Randle"?),


Congrats on your recent academic achievment!

The point I was trying to make is that the courts are very
rarely about justice or the truth; but rather, about what is
considered "possible". For instance, if a plaintiff claimed that
they were damaged because they believed a toy gun once pointed
at them was real, a jury might buy into that argument. Why?
Because common knowledge is that real guns do exist; the
confusion would be understandable. If someone claimed that they
were made to believe they had been abused as a child, they could
prevail in court since society now acknowledges that child abuse
does exist. If someone claimed they had been led to believe they
were the one time participants of satanic rituals, they could
prevail because people now know that satanic rituals do exist.

On the other hand, it would take a damn good lawyer to convince
a jury that someone was damaged because they actually thought
they had been abducted by aliens from outer space. Why? Because
society hasn't really bought into the idea that life "out there"
exists. If common knowledge dictates otherwise, then why should
the plaintiff be believed? (Granted, because the courts are not
always about justice it is also possible to win a case that has
no merit.)

But it should be remembered that simply filing a lawsuit does
not guarantee it will be tried; and this is the real issue, I
think. If a prelim-hearing judge thinks the lawsuit to be
frivilous; out it goes. Therefore, for a court to take something
like "alien abductions" seriously enough to give it a place on
an already overcrowded docket indicates a gentle (but important)
shift in the public/legal acceptance regarding the possibility
of ET's. To put things in perspective, imagine someone in 1949
trying to get a "false memory alien abduction" lawsuit into
court, much less the belief and support of a jury!

I say bring on the lawsuits! Bring on the media! Let's have
testimony about ET's on legal record for a change.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:24:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:09:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:50:59 -0700
>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.co
>>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:19:21 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

><snip>

>>Not quite true. Richard Boylan has already been taken to court
>>because of his "abduction research." He lost his license to
>>practice in California because of it. It proved nothing about
>>the reality of UFOs or abductions, but did demonstrate, at least
>>some of the problems with hypnotic regression and researcher
>>bias.

>>I haven't even mentioned all those who believe in Satanic Ritual
>>Abuse, who told horrifying tales both with and without hypnosis,
>>and who in turn sued the doctors for malpractice. I believe that
>>it was just announced that one "victim" won $2 million in a
>>lawsuit in Illinois with more to follow.

>>KRandle, Ph.D.
>>http://www.randlereport.com

>Kevin,

>Congratulations on your Ph.D. I look forward to reading your new
>book. I have followed the abduction enigma for many years but I
>remain in the "questioning center" about it.

>Your post makes me wonder what parallels there may be between
>people reporting Alien Abduction and Satanic Ritual Abuse. I
>haven't heard much about Satanic abuse in recent years and I
>have been under the assumption that most cases proved groundless
>and may have been the products of fundamental fears and
>overactive imaginations. I have not been interested enough in
>the subject to research it. My guess may be far from the truth.
>I am trying to understand your above statement.

>Have people told horrifying satanic ritual events without
>hypnosis that have been proven factually true? What was the
>nature of the plaintiff's charges in the lawsuit where one
>"victim" won $2M in Illinois? Was that for the doctors leading
>into a hypnotic fantasy? What parallels do you see between the
>origin and etiology of the alien abduction enigma and cases of
>Satanic abuse? Are any mentioned in the book?

>I certainly don't condone lying but Glen Dennis sure did
>a lousy job of it. He couldn't keep his lies straight. He
>violated the first "principle" of a con artist.

Hi,

My congratulations also to Kevin. The Randle/s are coming.
Beware.

As to Satanic Ritual Abuse - my friend and frequent co-author
has plenty of experience, not as a satanist I had better add
knowing how these things get out of hand on the net (!), but as
a researecher into withcraft. He has written an excellent book
on this topic. As a UK abduction researcher too (who uses
hypnosis by the way as hes never been a BUFORA member but
fulfills my moral rule by only doing so through and under
constant supervision of a clinical psychologist) he's been
seeking the parallels with SRA and with bogus social worker
cases which he also considers relevant. There is some material
on this in his book (pompously titled - not by him I should add)
- 'The truth about alien abductions' (Cassell, UK - I believe
distributed in the US by Sterling). Also theres a chapter in our
joint book - 'The Encylopedia Of The Unexplained' (Michael
O'Mara).

We are currently working on another book together (our 11th if I
counted right) which is called 'Supernatural Causes?' and
investigates deaths and injuries attributed to the supernatural.
Peter is planning something in there on the patterns with such
cases, I believe, although its early days in the project to be
sure what will get into the final cut.

Peter is not yet on the net (I've tried to persuade him)  but
anyone keen to pursue this research could write or call/fax to:

6 Silsden Avenue
Lowton
Warrington
WA3 1EN  UK

Tel/Fax: ++(44) (0) 1942 604 265

Best Wishes,

Jenny Randles






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                          'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Phillip S. Duke <drpduke@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:51:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:16:03 -0400
Subject: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


Phillip S. Duke Ph.D. Experimental Pathology announces
availability of his new Book titled 'The AIDS-ET Connection'.
Evidence is presented from Biomedicine and Ufology that HIVs and
their pandemics are of purposeful ET origin.

The AIDS-ET Connection is a new unifying hypothesis which
logically, simply and neatly explains all cattle mutilation and
human abduction phenomena. A brief Letter titled "Is there an
AIDS-ET connection" was published in the Oct. MUFON UFO J. Forum
following which the author's work has been black listed by
MUFON.

Described in the Book is a case where a male abductee with
implant tested HIV Positive until his implant was surgically
removed, after which he tested and remains HIV Negative.
Verified in writing by Dr. Roger K. Leir.

Did you know that all cattle mutilation body sites correspond
with possible HIV transmission sites in humans? That cattle are
relatively similar to humans genetically?

That mutilated cattle blood might be a medium for HIV
replication?

Did you know that the physical exam human abductees receive very
much emphasizes possible locations of HIV transmission? That the
human body materials sampled including blood are all logical
choices to test for possible presence of HIV?

Do you know how many people walking around have HIV? You don't?
Well, no one does, as there is no central reporting agency. All
test results are confidential.

Dr. Mirko D. Grmek M.D. Ph.D. highly respected author of 'The
History Of AIDS', Princeton U. Press, stated "The epidemic's
spread is exponential justifying cataclysmic predictions." That
was in 1990. Do you think the situation has improved since then?

My recent book 'The AIDS-ET Connection' goes into all these
issues and more. It is presently available for $19.95 total cost
from me at 2503 S. 47th Street Omaha NE 68106 USA. Also from
Amazon.com under Medicine/Disease/AIDS/HIV.

The Book is sold with a lifetime money back guarantee. Return
for full refund anytime.

If you cannot afford to purchase this book please write stating
why and the reason for your interest in the subject. A copy may
be sent you.

If you desire medical assistance consult a physician without delay.
Good Luck!

Sincerely,


Phil Duke Ph.D.
drpduke@juno.com
Phone: 1-402-553-8525 - Listed.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                              Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 09:02:35 PDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:27:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:04:55 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 99 20:17:40 PDT

>>I think I've committed what some consider the ultimate heresy:
>>speaking well of Budd Hopkins.  Sorry, Dennis. You know my views
>>on the Roper poll.

Dennis,

>But we do know who's responsible for promoting the Roper poll's
>so-called scientific stature, don't we? Even in the face of such
>friendly criticism as yours.

Budd Hopkins is as entitled to his views as you are to yours and
I am to mine.  I'm sure that just as no doubt he's wrong about
some things, so are you and I.

>But I forget: Budd is above criticism. And to criticize would
>represent something resembling heresy, wouldn't it?

Oh, for crissake.  C'mon, Dennis.  The reality is that to many
who knock him, often for bad or even invented reasons, Budd is
beyond praise.

Jerry Clark






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                      Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie

From: Jerome Clark" <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 09:20:40 PDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:32:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie


>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 21:39:15 -0400
>From: Peter Brookesmith - Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 21:16:10 PDT


Patient and gentle listfolk:

>Recently we have read charges on this list that Budd Hopkins
>hypnotizes children while pursuing research into UFO-abduction
>reports.  I have had deep doubts about this very serious
>allegation, which runs contrary to everything I know and have
>observed about Budd's ethics, judgment, and sensitivity to
>others.

>>Even more astonished than I to read these fantastic claims, he
>>phoned Budd to ask about them.

>The tone of outrage and righteous indignation that this and
>related posts have displayed strikes me as a trifle belated,
>apart from being bloated. I particularly wonder why it took
>Jerome, a devoted and assiduous reader of "Fortean Times", six
>years to crank his glands into an uproar of "astonishment" or
>(alternatively) to notice that his morality meter had long since
>bent its needle.

I guess you'd have to be a Peter Brookesmith to know the
derivation of cranking glands into an uproar, or even to conceive
that somebody, such as the undersigned, would have chosen
not to read something PB wrote.  Simple fact of the matter: I
didn't read his FT article.  Now that the falsehood it circulated
has had years of undeserved life, I wish I'd read it and sought
verification at the time.  I confess, however, that -- with the
occasional exception (a splendid piece on Dark Side ufology in
one of his books) -- I find Peter's work at best of modest interest,
his often smirky, immensely self-pleased prose generally
unreadable.

>>In other words, we've been at the receiving end of the Big Lie.
>>Those who have passed it on, innocently if recklessly, owe Budd
>>Hopkins an apology. Those who knew or suspected it was a lie but
>>circulated it anyway are beyond redemption.  The former are
>>urged, in the name of common decency, to apologize publicly.
>>This list would be a good place to do it.

>O, la! - what unctuous hyperbole. Some people really do need to
>get a sense of proportion. At worst this is not a lie, let alone
>The Big Lie, but a misunderstanding, and one generated by
>Hopkins's ambiguity. I *hope* Jerome is not here implying that I
>am a liar. Recklessness hardly enters into it.


>Neither common decency nor the facts call for a public anything
>unless you're addicted to something akin to the traditions of the
>Christian flagellants or Maoist self-criticism. In many respects
>the Clarkian style of ufological correctness - to whose props we
>may now add sackcloth and ashes for the plebs, and a book, a bell
>and a candle for theologian Clark - resembles these, but that
>doesn't mean their (or his) less couth proclivities should be
>encouraged among hoi polloi. If a blunder has been made - which
>has yet to be established - a clarifying note to Budd Hopkins is
>in order. Whether an apology is required depends on the nature of
>the mistake, if any, and that too has yet to be determined. Let
>me here echo Jenny's appeal for hard evidence if it can be made
>available quickly.

As usual, beneath Brookesmith's bloated and self-congratulatory
prose, there is little of substance.  He falsely charged that
Budd Hopkins was hypnotizing small children.  I am willing to
accept his explanation that he did so out of honest
misunderstanding.  I am not willing to accept his tedious,
self-serving rationale -- laced, typically, with ad-hominem
remarks -- for not withdrawing and apologizing for his role in
circulating a bogus allegation. Contrast his response with the
profoundly decent one of Jenny Randles.

We may be sure, sadly, that said bogus allegation now has a life
of its own and will be recycled endlessly by Hopkins's
ill-wishers throughout the world.

The older I get, the smaller, it seems, Peter Brookesmith
becomes.

Jerry Clark





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                              Re: RIPT & MJ-12

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:11:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:35:57 -0400
Subject: Re: RIPT & MJ-12


>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: RIPT & MJ-12
>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:51:41 +0200


>>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>>Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:22:44 -0500
>>Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:37:37 -0500
>>Subject: Re: RPIT Roswell Revisitation: The Next Step?

>>Regarding...

>>>From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
>>>Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:03:46 EST
>>>Subject: RPIT Roswell Revisitation: The Next Step?

>>James wrote:

>>>Further, RPIT has been able to read in part the official message held
>>>in the hand of General Ramey in the four shots taken of him which
>>>make reference to "victims of the crashed DISK being transported to
>>>Fort Worth" from "Site Two" near Magdalena, N. Mexico, and further
>>>appears to suggest or order the general to issue an announcement as
>>>to a "weather balloon" cover-up.

I might caution that there is no consensus as to what the ones
on that first line really are. The word victims has been
interpreted in various ways including a number who have
suggested the word is actually "remains. There is nothing close
to approaching consensus to suggest that there is anything about
"Site Two" near "Magdalena, N. Mexico." Others have suggested
the city name is Roswell rather than Magdalena.

>>James,

>>The 'Ramey telegram' may be indecipherable, however, as the
>>printing consists of fixed spacing, this offers important
clues >>to the probabilities.

<snip>

>or,

>>From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com> >>Date: Sun, 1 Nov
1998 19:56:51 EST >>Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 08:54:47 -0500
>>Subject: RPIT Roswell Revisitation Report No. 1

>>RPIT Roswell Revisitation Report No. 1

>>PRIMARY PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this RPIT Report No. 1
>>is to present the findings of RPIT (Roswell Photo
Interpretation >>Team) photo analysts after five-months of
intensive study of the >>Roswell "flying saucer" photos

 <snip>

>James & James & List,

>Regarding the interpretation of the Ramey message, and for
>instance the letterhead/seal interpretations, I thought I would
>refer to the report to Congressman Steve Schiff having to do
>with the Roswell incident ("GAO report", from United States
>General Accounting Office), ' issued in 1995, and which I
>happend to come across on the Web:

>http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/maj12b.htm

>and specifically referring to to Appendix 2:

>http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/maj12b.htm#app2

If this is a teletype document, then there would be no
letterhead on it. Teletype paper came in long rolls. I have seen
the seal interpreted as an old style telephone or the liberty
bell or just a smudge.

>Note that the word "flying disc" (disc with a "c") is being
>used here. And, maybe Mr. R. Davis from NSA could help in
>providing some info. on letterheads, etc.?

>This report is probably known to many of the members of the
>List already, but for new members the report could have some
>interest.

>According to the Web site, a copy of the report may be obtained
>by calling (202) 512-6000 and referencing Document number
>GAO/NSIAD-95-187.

>Further, some months ago I watched a TV program on the
>Discovery channel, showing the interpretation work on the Dead
>Sea Scrolls. They were using a certain computer program to
>enhance the letters' readability on the scanned book pages, or
>the photos of these. That is, they were using a CAD program to
>enlarge the letters, and then fill in the letters and their
>fuzzy outlines with black. I don't know whether the RPIT
>members have been using this method in their work, but in any
>case, the results obtained from using this method will also
>depend on the use of subjective judgements in some way or
>other.

Here is the real important part of this posting. There are
subjective judgments being made. We are interpreting what we see
with a best guess regardless of the sophistication of the
equipment. We are interpreting the message in the context of the
assumption that it relates to the Roswell case. We have no
evidence that this is the case. All we KNOW is that Ramey, on
July 8, was holding this document in his hand.

KRandle, Ph.D.
www.randlereport.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                             Re: Hypnotic Abuse

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:03:10 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:39:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse


>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:50:59 -0700
>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.co
>>>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:19:21 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>><snip>

>>>Not quite true. Richard Boylan has already been taken to court
>>>because of his "abduction research." He lost his license to
>>>practice in California because of it. It proved nothing about
>>>the reality of UFOs or abductions, but did demonstrate, at least
>>>some of the problems with hypnotic regression and researcher
>>>bias.

>>>I haven't even mentioned all those who believe in Satanic Ritual
>>>Abuse, who told horrifying tales both with and without hypnosis,
>>>and who in turn sued the doctors for malpractice. I believe that
>>>it was just announced that one "victim" won $2 million in a
>>>lawsuit in Illinois with more to follow.

>>>KRandle, Ph.D.
>>>http://www.randlereport.com

>>Kevin,

>>Congratulations on your Ph.D. I look forward to reading your new
>>book. I have followed the abduction enigma for many years but I
>>remain in the "questioning center" about it.

>>Your post makes me wonder what parallels there may be between
>>people reporting Alien Abduction and Satanic Ritual Abuse.

><snip>

>I suspect that there are many parallels and I still wonder why
>US researchers are so enamoured by these very questionable
>hypnotic techniques. Although therapy/visiting the shrink is
>rather more popular in the US, in the very imperfect UK 95% of
>us are against the use of hypnosis in terms of close encounters
>experiences (and more besides!!).

>No group in Northern England sanctions is as far as I can tell
>and this has been in force for many years - which is perhaps
>why we don't have as many 'alien abductions' over here...?

Indeed, I was not aware that Kevin had recently earned his
Ph.D., and congratulations are in order.

That being said, I think that too much generalization is
occuring here. The decision to withdraw Boylan's license was not
based specifically on his performing "abduction research".
While I can't find a good refernce to provide specifics, which
were posted to the "net" years ago, I believe it was related to
his therapudic techniques and were not directly related to
hypnotic regression or abduction research.  It would a serious
error to imply that those who practice "abduction research" in
California will have their licenses revoked, or that those who
use "hypnotic regression" may face a similar fate.

Kevin's statement is accurate, but could be taken to mean much
more than I hope he had intended.  I would add that not all
abuduction researchers are "enamoured" by hypnotic regression,
and Kevin raises a good point when he mentions that there are
numerous legal challenges involving "satanic ritual abuse", as
well as "sexual abuse".






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:54:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:25:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:36:54 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]

>and remember that these sorts of claims (Satanic and abduction)
>can wreck people's lives.

Documentation, please, on how abduction claims have wrecked
lives.

Anecdotes not welcome, since they can easily be countered with
situations I've personally observed, in which people pulled
themselves together by coming to terms with their reported
abduction experiences.

Let's have some statistical data. What proportion of abductees
have wrecked their lives by thinking they've been abducted?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:09:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:48:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


Y'all,

Well, you've got to laugh and admire at the gall of whoever was
behind this hoax (which takes several readings before the full
ramifications sink in). No doubt there will now be a flurry of
'outraged' decent ufologists who are appalled at such a hoax
being perpetrated on the 'UFO community'.

They will be wrong.

There is a long tradition of hoaxing within ufology and
associated subjects, and careful hoax experiments can only be
helpful. For example The Warminster hoax, MJ-12, the various
crop circle hoaxes etc have all been tremendously useful in
showing us just how witnesses experience, how investigators go
about their business, how the media (both general and
ufological) report a case and how the rumour mill spreads and
mutates.

This is very useful stuff to know indeed because when done under
controlled conditions, where all the information is known and
carefully documented, these hoaxes tell us a lot about as-yet
'unidentified' cases.

However unpalatable this may seem it is true. The Burns hoax is
just one in a long line of instructive exercises which we ignore
at our peril.

Ey ooop, they've started already:

Roy Hale misperceived:

>These people who were at the BUFORA lecture looked pretty
>innocent to me' they were probably revelling in their own self
>delight on their purposeful entrapment of Max. (Thank god I took
>pictures at the lecture)

Will Roy now practise psycometry over his photos of the BUFORA
(Sponsors of Max Burns) lecture to determine who the
hoaxers were? As far as I can see Max acted on the messages
entirely of his own free will. Again and again, making no attempt
to verify any part of what he was being told.

>How long must this BS carry on? You talk of Max and him hoaxing
>this whole incident, I think you have to read your own e-mail,
>wasn't it yourselves who made contact with Max regarding a crash
>site? Wasn't it yourselves who told Max that you were part of a
>military team who had knowledge of this incident? Wasn't it
>yourselves who led Max to believe the BS you were writing?

Forgive me if I'm wrong Roy, but it wouldn't have been a hoax if
the above wasn't true. What's your point exactly? Surely Max
acted on his own free will in this matter, could have chosen not
to have replied time and time again to the hoaxes, could have
seen through the obvious James Bond-isms in the text, and so on.
But he chose to let his beliefs lead him by the nose. If Burns,
or indeed any other investigator, is lacking in the nous to spot
and obvious hoax, (and I'm sure we're all saying to ourselves
'huh, *we* wouldn't have fallen for that'), then what does it
say about the level of investigative abilities?

>Who appointed you the self guardians of ufolgy? Who gave you
>this high & mighty platform? Who the hell are you to judge all
>UK ufologists who happen to believe in the ETH as mad hat
>believers and crackpots? When will the likes of yourselves climb
>down from this high horse you have been sat on for some time!

Roy goes into rant mode and reads from the initiation document
to his UFO club! Righteous indignation won't solve cases Roy,
nor will it affect the reality or not of the ETH.

>Do you have day time jobs? Who funds this crap?

Would it matter if the perpetrators were unemployed
or brain surgeons? I don't see the relevance. Presumably
the people behind the Piltdown Man hoax were all educated,
employed people. Your point is?

>Does anyone blame Max for answering your poxy e-mails? If you
>had spent 27 months on a case and then you received such info,
>would you ignore it?

Good point Roy - no I might not ignore it but I'd sure as hell
take precautions to check things out. C'mon Roy, if someone told
you you could make contact with a military source by standing
reading The Times at the side of a resevoir wouldn't you just
have a teensy-weensy bit of doubt?

> Oh what a sad day this is' this really is
>the death of uk ufology as we know it

Someone ought to trademark the expression 'death of UK Ufology'
as it is used so much by different people!

>I can understand why
>people are leaving the field of research with BS like this being
>churned out.

In my experience people tend to leave ufology when they don't
find in it what they believed was there. Hence why there is such
a huge turnover (certainly in the UK) of good researchers.

>The jam: Going underground:

I'll see your crap Paul Weller quote and raise you a Robert
Hunter:

'Sometimes you get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right'.

As the hoaxer/s say: 'caveat lector' (surely related to Hannibal
Lector judging by the way Burns was chewed up and spat out!)

Happy Solstice Trails

Andy






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                         Big Grey Man of Ben McDhui

From: Allen Loper <cheepnis@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:00:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:57:56 -0400
Subject: Big Grey Man of Ben McDhui


>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:46:12 -0400
>From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - The truth is out!
>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>,

>>From: Judith Jaafar <judithjaafar@compuserve.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome - The truth is out!
>>Date: 18 June 1999 00:35

>the moment in lieu of evidence to the contrary. The world and
>what exists in it and within the human mind is a far more
>interesting and exciting subject than any warped sci fi invented
>by ufologists. Read my demolition of the Big Grey Man of Ben
>McDhui in the latest Fortean Studies or Strange Daze - shows how
>the natural can become the supernatural but yet still 'sexy'.

Hi all,

I would very much like to read this and would appreciate any help in
finding a www reference.

TIA
k

"Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome."

--Isaac Asimov






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: "Matthew Williams" <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:31:25 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:51:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


This from Max Burns related via phone at 18:30 21.6.99

In light of the protagonists coming forward to lead Max up a
garden path... The whole basis for the attached text was to try
to get Max to release this falsehood at the recent BUFORA
lecture. Unfortunately for the "hoaxers" we were quite aware
that this was possibly a hoax, but when investigating incidents
your not allowed luxury of seeing into the future and can only
investigate cases and folow leads up with sincerity.

Although I have been aware of the falsehood since the 20th
March, after taking council from people in Ufology that I trust,
the opinion was that you still have to follow leads.

The fact that I have not released any of the information that
they have supplied in their story/emails, either in my research
or my lecture, as far as I am concerned speaks volumes for my
diligence to verify any potential facts. It is quite sad that
some people will go to these lengths in an attempt to entice
someone to discredit their research fr their own personal gain.

Unfortuantely also for the purputators of this hoax, as I have
chosen not to go public with this information they were at a
loss, as the fruits of their deception had borne no results. So
they have now released this statement to score some points from
their deceptive work.

On a positive note: A good day was had out out on the moors by
all involved. Well aware that this could be a hoax the whole day
was planned more in line with a day out on the moors rather than
meeting the witness.

To note: Dr David Clarke recently discredited his own research,
the fact of the matter is that Dr Clark maintains that the cause
of the whole nights events was due to a covert low flying
excercise which involved six tornados launched from RAF Marham
that evening. This excerise culminated in a couple of pilots
accidentally breachoing the sound barrier whilst performing mid
air turns, which gave light to a number of misidentifications of
said aircraft culminating in a number of UFO reports as well as
a light aircraft etc etc et al.

The problem is that the (Sheffield) seismic events occured at
21.52 at 22.06 however from Dr Clarks own research PRO (Public
Relations Officer) Ed Bullpit that all six aircraft were safely
on the ground by 21.35 therefore how could the covert low flying
excerise possibly be the cause for events which happened 17
minutes and 31 minutes after the air group had landed
respectively. The covert low flying excerise could not possibly
be the explaintaion for the nights events. Unless Dr Clark can
explain how landed aircraft can be the cause of such events, if
that is your case Dr Clark, then you do not have a case. Please
explain how this discrepancy could occur.

Max Burns



----


Now a note from Matthew Williams.

I think that the act of hoaxing for negative reasons is a bad
one. The reasons put forward by the "hoaxers" show their motives
are less than honorable. Indeed they feel the need to use
anonymous email addresses to hide behind because if their
identies were known they would be universally shunned by the UFO
community for their activities. However in my experience this
type of behaviour is typical of what I am terming "northern
ufology". This is not to damn all Northern Ufologists of who
there are many, but to highlight an ALARMING trend in certain
circles for this type of hoaxing and time wasting. Most of this
behaviour seems to be taking place "up north", and involves a
very well known band of not so merry people. Many readers out
there are probably aware of who these people are and their
motives and may have seen some of their other "hoax" works in
the past.

The point is that these so called Ufologists are let down by the
fact that Max chose to keep details of the Moors trip secret
until verifiable details had been gathered. It is obvious that
the hoaxers wanted to show that Max is someone who is easily led
by any piece of information and this is not the case! Given the
fact that the person who originally sent Max the emails told Max
to meet him on the moors under specific conditions, and that Max
is heavily involved in research on the Sheffield case, he could
hardly ignore the request to meet this person. As a warning
(which Max was well aware of) myself and other researchers
pointed out that this could well be a set up to waste Max's time
and money. Many of us have been "hoaxed" like this in the past,
so this is nothing new. Max discussed the possibility of the new
witness being a hoax with 10 or so people before attending the
moors.

However Max chose to take a chance on the person attending and
brought with him equipment to detect metal, radiation and record
events. This is the actions of a serious researcher, but the
"hoaxers" choose to make fun of this. This shows how shallow
they are.

I believe that this is a last ditch attempt by some to discredit
Max because after presenting an excelent lecture at BUFORA which
was both balanced and well illustrated, some people are worried
that Max may gain more favour.

Why is it that some people would then choose to attach a
researcher by all dirty methods possible. What is it that we are
not supposed to learn about the Sheffield case... what is it
that they would rather us not hear. These dirty tricks only draw
more light onto the case, and now Max is getting even more
publicity because of these peoples actions - so the hoaxers have
lost again!

I would like to draw peoples attentions to those who have openly
attacked Max in the most underhand of ways recently and make a
supposition that these are probably the same people who
purpurated this hoax. These same people left a number of clues
behind to their identity in this "hoax" statement which leads
straight to their door considering my private emails to them
direct - which were not copied to anyone else... very sloppy...
but I won't name names. I will leave it up to them to admit to
their childish acts. These same people probably also make hoax
calls to the police and fire service when their egos are feeling
a little low. Now you understand the mentality of the so called
"ufologists" we are dealing with here.

Well done children, time to grow up, thats all I can say.

Matthew Williams Truthseekers International.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                                 Kind Words

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:13:20 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:01:37 -0400
Subject: Kind Words


List, All -

A number of you have sent congratulations on my completion of
one part of my continuing education. Let me thank all of you for
your kind words. I'm glad to have that, and the dissertation,
behind me.

KRandle, Ph.D.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:44:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:07:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:18:04 -0500 (CDT)
>From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>Any post by a group with such a self-congratulatory name is
>immediately suspect anyway, at least to this Texan.

The name is a neat pun, one immediately apparent to those with a
classical education and a background in literary criticism,
typical of British wit, and no Texans - who could teach the
British polity many useful things, given the opportunity, and
ears that would hear - should feel demeaned if it passed over
their heads.

Genius loci: Latin for 'the spirit of the place'.

Loki: one of several variant spellings for the horrid creature
who, in Scandinavian mythology, gnaws away destructively at the
roots of Yggdrasil, the tree of life. This figure appears in
Wagner's Ring cycle and in more modern reincarnations in DH
Lawrence's "Women in Love" and (I think...) in Tolkien's "Lord
of the Rings".

Mmm. I guess you could say that wit of this kind is a little
self-consciously clever, and so by extension
self-congratulatory.

Bloody hilarious post, though, whoever's hoaxing whom. O my
sides, as someone said.

best wishes
Punctatum D. Misereri





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Kathleen Andersen <KAnder6444@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:27:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:05:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Bluehare Dark Peak <bluehare24@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:29:45 GMT


>ATTENTION UFOLOGISTS
>A MESSAGE FROM GENIUS LOKI FOLLOWS

>We are a group of people, active in UFO hoaxing since
>the mid 80s, and going under the collective name of Genius Loki.
>Some reading this document may think hoaxing is unacceptable
>a waste of time which could be put to better use
>investigating �UFOs.� Show us a UFO and we will happily
>investigate it!

>We believe that if ufologists are unable to
>determine that a case is hoaxed or not then they should stick
>to watching sci-fi.. Stupidity within the subject of UFOlogy
>has reached new peaks of intensity during the last two years.>>

Can someone pass a message to this group and ask if they can
next hoax God. For after all, I've never seen him/her/it. Some
people spend their lives in search of God, many make a living
talking about God, more than 90% of the planet worships a God
but then that is all based on theory and not concrete evidence.

Why must some of us have such closed minds to the existence of
things unless we can touch it, see it, hear it or  smell it. If
someone did not venture out and build a telescope we would never
learn that there are real things beyond what our eyes can focus
on. If someone didn't have the foresight  to build a microscope
we would never learn of a minature world that lives on us and in
us.

I am currently working on an interview with Michio Kaku author
of Hyperspace, Visions and Beyond Einstein. Yes even a scientist
can keep an open mind. I like what he has to say:

"99.9% of UFO sightings might be wrong, but it only takes one
sighting to change the foundations of all our scientific
knowledge"


Kathleen Andersen
MUFON State Section Director
Seattle

Yes even a skeptic once in a while!





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:33:04 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:14:08 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:51:45 -0700
>Subject: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>From: Phillip S. Duke <drpduke@juno.com>

>Phillip S. Duke Ph.D. Experimental Pathology announces
>availability of his new Book titled 'The AIDS-ET Connection'.
>Evidence is presented from Biomedicine and Ufology that HIVs and
>their pandemics are of purposeful ET origin.

>The AIDS-ET Connection is a new unifying hypothesis which
>logically, simply and neatly explains all cattle mutilation and
>human abduction phenomena. A brief Letter titled "Is there an
>AIDS-ET connection" was published in the Oct. MUFON UFO J. Forum
>following which the author's work has been black listed by
>MUFON.

>Described in the Book is a case where a male abductee with
>implant tested HIV Positive until his implant was surgically
>removed, after which he tested and remains HIV Negative.
>Verified in writing by Dr. Roger K. Leir.


No, I don't think so. It is easier to believe that the USA government
created the HIV virus.

THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI
Diretor Do Departamento de Publicao e Traduo Especializadas ( DEPTE -
EBE-ET / Brasilia-Brasil)
Director of the Publication Department and Specialized Translation
ICQ - 35119615
****** SE VOC NO  POLCIA NO USE ARMAS ************





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                     GOES and METEOSAT pictures of UFOS?

From: Luis Eduardo Pacheco <ufozone@bigfoot.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:18:12 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:31:15 -0400
Subject: GOES and METEOSAT pictures of UFOS?


I'm writing an article for my electronic magazine (in Spanish)
about the subject, so I'm searching the pictures in question.

After a not too sucesfuly web search in the NOAA site (GOES Home
Page) and other sites on the Net I'm wondering if anybody on
the list can send me more information, specially the images wich
was asociated at the NORAD alert in 1997?

The issue was un-earthed, again, by the press a month ago in my
country, triggering my decision to write about that thing.

Thank you and excuse my Tarzan-like English.


Un abrazo!

***************************************************************
*  Luis Eduardo Pacheco * Caseros * Buenos Aires * Argentina  *
***************************************************************
* INFORME ALFA: Una vision de la Ovnilogia y las Paraciencias *
*     desde la logica, el sentido comun y la mente abierta    *
*                                                             *
*                 YA ESTA DISPONIBLE EL NUMERO 1              *
*                 ==============================              *
*                                                             *
* http://visitweb.com/ALFA  * Email: informe_alfa@bigfoot.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:50:30 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:40:49 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:51:45 -0700
>Subject: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>From: Phillip S. Duke <drpduke@juno.com>

Hello list

>Phillip S. Duke Ph.D. Experimental Pathology announces
>availability of his new Book titled 'The AIDS-ET Connection'.
>Evidence is presented from Biomedicine and Ufology that HIVs and
>their pandemics are of purposeful ET origin.

Sorry, sir I don't buy your malicious crap.

>The AIDS-ET Connection is a new unifying hypothesis which
>logically, simply and neatly explains all cattle mutilation and
>human abduction phenomena. A brief Letter titled "Is there an
>AIDS-ET connection" was published in the Oct. MUFON UFO J. Forum
>following which the author's work has been black listed by
>MUFON.

I wonder why.

>Described in the Book is a case where a male abductee with
>implant tested HIV Positive until his implant was surgically
>removed, after which he tested and remains HIV Negative.
>Verified in writing by Dr. Roger K. Leir.

>Did you know that all cattle mutilation body sites correspond
>with possible HIV transmission sites in humans? That cattle are
>relatively similar to humans genetically?

Yep,a recent human cloning thechnique used cow eggs and human
sperm/yolk (maybe there is somthing to the Minotaur
fable?)

_However_. AIDS has been duly documented its transmission also
duly documented. Monkey bites, eating rare Monkey meat is how
AIDS got into the human population. Not O'l Bossie. Pigs are
closer to us, genetically - they're not ungluates for one. Two,
Pigs have a a very simular overall genetic makeup, they suffer
from simular diseases. Cows do not - I vote for the Oinkers
being the medium of choice.

>That mutilated cattle blood might be a medium for HIV
>replication?

>Did you know that the physical exam human abductees receive very
>much emphasizes possible locations of HIV transmission? That the
>human body materials sampled including blood are all logical
>choices to test for possible presence of HIV?

Having to place myself in defense of the Aliens what unearthly
good (or bad) would the transmission of a hard to get disease to
the Human Population unless they were, ah, Purtian Aliens that
wanted to control human immorality (I don't think so, we are
capable of monumental immorality they'd have to do a zapping of
the whole planet a la "Marvin the Martian" of Warner Bros. fame.)

>Do you know how many people walking around have HIV? You don't?
>Well, no one does, as there is no central reporting agency. All
>test results are confidential.

Yes, but keeping ones "pants zipped and yer wick dry" does
wonders for the transmission of AIDS.

>Dr. Mirko D. Grmek M.D. Ph.D. highly respected author of 'The
>History Of AIDS', Princeton U. Press, stated "The epidemic's
>spread is exponential justifying cataclysmic predictions." That
>was in 1990. Do you think the situation has improved since then?

>My recent book 'The AIDS-ET Connection' goes into all these
>issues and more. It is presently available for $19.95 total cost
>from me at 2503 S. 47th Street Omaha NE 68106 USA. Also from
>Amazon.com under Medicine/Disease/AIDS/HIV.

>The Book is sold with a lifetime money back guarantee. Return
>for full refund anytime.

>If you cannot afford to purchase this book please write stating
>why and the reason for your interest in the subject. A copy may
>be sent you.

>If you desire medical assistance consult a physician without delay.
>Good Luck!

Solid advice, even if  I do says meself!

You know list folk, this is the kind of crap that make Ufology a
laughingstock! AIDS is a great tragedy it is not to be made
light of and I don't want to do that, but absurdity must be met
with abusurdity. Who do you think you are to attribute Aliens or
God to what is a Disease that is clearly human.

-GT McCoy

"Cats look down on us, Dogs look up to us, Pigs treat us as
Equals."-W.S. Churchill





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                             Re: Hypnotic Abuse

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:23:17 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:51:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse


>From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]
>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:26:28 +0100

>No group in Northern England sanctions is as far as I can tell
>and this has been in force for many years - which is perhaps
>why we don't have as many 'alien abductions' over here...?


Hi All,

Regarding the above I wonder if this is the case for most
Southern UFO Research groups? be interesting to find out.

So here is the question: If you are a member of a Southern UFO
Research team do you use the methods of hypnotic regression when
dealing with alleged Alien abductees?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                              Re: RIPT & MJ-12

From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:37:14 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:55:07 -0400
Subject: Re: RIPT & MJ-12


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:11:14 EDT
>Subject: Re: RIPT & MJ-12
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: RIPT & MJ-12
>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:51:41 +0200

>>>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>>>Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:22:44 -0500
>>>Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:37:37 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: RPIT Roswell Revisitation: The Next Step?

>>>Regarding...

>>>>From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
>>>>Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:03:46 EST
>>>>Subject: RPIT Roswell Revisitation: The Next Step?

>>>James wrote:

>>>>Further, RPIT has been able to read in part the official message held
>>>>in the hand of General Ramey in the four shots taken of him which
>>>>make reference to "victims of the crashed DISK being transported to
>>>>Fort Worth" from "Site Two" near Magdalena, N. Mexico, and further
>>>>appears to suggest or order the general to issue an announcement as
>>>>to a "weather balloon" cover-up.

>I might caution that there is no consensus as to what the ones
>on that first line really are. The word victims has been
>interpreted in various ways including a number who have
>suggested the word is actually "remains. There is nothing close
>to approaching consensus to suggest that there is anything about
>"Site Two" near "Magdalena, N. Mexico." Others have suggested
>the city name is Roswell rather than Magdalena.


Hi All,

As a member of RPIT I suppose I'd better pass comment...

Firstly regarding the "take's" of the wording of the message,
many of the "versions" of the wording floating about on the
Internet seem to be from very early "looks", done in many cases
with "glass and eye" on the 16x20 prints, I think it became
apparant this method could only go so far and produced at times
wide variations in interpretation. I would suggest these "takes"
were early impressions rather than results cast in stone. Not
having access to the 16x20 prints I have concentrated more on
using scanned sections of my 11x14 prints, the images of the
message on my website are samples of some of the images I have
used.

>>>The 'Ramey telegram' may be indecipherable, however, as the
>>>printing consists of fixed spacing, this offers important
>clues >>to the probabilities.

<snip>

>If this is a teletype document, then there would be no
>letterhead on it. Teletype paper came in long rolls. I have seen
>the seal interpreted as an old style telephone or the liberty
>bell or just a smudge.

Two important points here both indicating the message was
"typed" on sheet stationery. Yes most of the text is laid out in
a fixed grid fashion, so much so that in the latest image I have
placed on my Ramey Signal section of my website, once I had
found a correct font point size I was able to type complete
lines of text on top of the message image and keep in sync with
the underlying image text.

The fact that the text is in a fixed grid also precludes using
some of the interpretations of the words because in many cases
they just don't fit the allowed number of letter spaces
available, a case in point... Magdalena is 9 letters, the space
allowed at the point in the message only has space for 8. Using
a simple piece of squared paper to act as the grid and laying
out the message many of these problems become clear.

The paper is also clearly not a teletype message, as Kevin
points out teletype machines used (and still do) continuous roll
paper which is just torn away as the message is complete, this
makes a large "letter heading" on the paper impossible if it
were teletype output. Also if you check the message itself, on
line 2 after the (my take) word CONVAY (yes I know, bad
spelling) there are variations in the line levels of the
following words. As the word CONVAY looks distinctly like it has
been corrected I suggest that as this correction was made the
sheet was wound up out of the typewriter, the correction made
and the paper then wound back, after the next word was typed the
clerk noticed the line level error and made a correction in
level and possible a further correction after the next word too.
This line feed action would be impossible to carry out on a
teletype machine but a common occurance in a typewriter.

I do disagree with the "old style phone" in the top left corner.
I think I have demonstrated on my website that there is a good
case for this item being a circular official seal monogram of
some type similar to many DOD/Military type in use at the time,
this one using as part of the seal wording "COMBAT" together
with a distinctive "arrowhead" device.

<snip>

>>Further, some months ago I watched a TV program on the
>>Discovery channel, showing the interpretation work on the Dead
>>Sea Scrolls. They were using a certain computer program to
>>enhance the letters' readability on the scanned book pages, or
>>the photos of these. That is, they were using a CAD program to
>>enlarge the letters, and then fill in the letters and their
>>fuzzy outlines with black. I don't know whether the RPIT
>>members have been using this method in their work, but in any
>>case, the results obtained from using this method will also
>>depend on the use of subjective judgements in some way or
>>other.

>Here is the real important part of this posting. There are
>subjective judgments being made. We are interpreting what we see
>with a best guess regardless of the sophistication of the
>equipment. We are interpreting the message in the context of the
>assumption that it relates to the Roswell case. We have no
>evidence that this is the case. All we KNOW is that Ramey, on
>July 8, was holding this document in his hand.

And the document seems to mention:

"4"  "VICTIMS"  "WRECK" "CONVAY" "CRASHES" "MIDDAY" "STORY ADV"
and might I also offer "EVEN PUT THEORY WEATATN BALLOONS"

On the afternoon of July 8th 1947 at 8th Air Force Headquarters,
and responsible for the command of RAAF, what might this be
refering to?.

As for MJ-12... it's not clear just what the figure "4" in close
association with the word "VICTIMS" on line 2 of the message
refers to, time? or quantity-number?.

But I find it coincidental that in the MJ-12 IP Unit Summary,
Intelligence Assessment document, paragraph 9 refers to 4
technicians, 3 dead, 1 status unknown, alledgedly caused by some
form of contamination at one of the recovery sites.

? 4 victims of contamination? An interesting coincidence.


>KRandle, Ph.D.
>www.randlereport.com
>

Well done on the Ph D.

Best Regards
Neil.

New image and updated "take" is at :
http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/ftw-pics/new-1/rmysignl.htm


--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
UK.                \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/
G8KOQ


             E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk

Roswell and Alien Autopsy Archive->  http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/
Dave Willetts Home Page->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/dave_willetts/
Mike Sterling Home Page->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/mike-s/
Tim Morgan Home Page   ->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/tim-m/






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                             Re: Hypnotic Abuse

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:40:57 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:58:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse


>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:03:10 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse


>>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:50:59 -0700
>>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.co
>>>>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:19:21 EDT
>>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>><snip>

>>>>Not quite true. Richard Boylan has already been taken to court
>>>>because of his "abduction research." He lost his license to
>>>>practice in California because of it. It proved nothing about
>>>>the reality of UFOs or abductions, but did demonstrate, at least
>>>>some of the problems with hypnotic regression and researcher
>>>>bias.

>>>>I haven't even mentioned all those who believe in Satanic Ritual
>>>>Abuse, who told horrifying tales both with and without hypnosis,
>>>>and who in turn sued the doctors for malpractice. I believe that
>>>>it was just announced that one "victim" won $2 million in a
>>>>lawsuit in Illinois with more to follow.

>>>>KRandle, Ph.D.
>>>>http://www.randlereport.com

>>>Kevin,

>>>Congratulations on your Ph.D. I look forward to reading your new
>>>book. I have followed the abduction enigma for many years but I
>>>remain in the "questioning center" about it.

>>>Your post makes me wonder what parallels there may be between
>>>people reporting Alien Abduction and Satanic Ritual Abuse.

>><snip>

>>I suspect that there are many parallels and I still wonder why
>>US researchers are so enamoured by these very questionable
>>hypnotic techniques. Although therapy/visiting the shrink is
>>rather more popular in the US, in the very imperfect UK 95% of
>>us are against the use of hypnosis in terms of close encounters
>>experiences (and more besides!!).

>>No group in Northern England sanctions is as far as I can tell
>>and this has been in force for many years - which is perhaps
>>why we don't have as many 'alien abductions' over here...?

>Indeed, I was not aware that Kevin had recently earned his
>Ph.D., and congratulations are in order.

Thank you very much.

>That being said, I think that too much generalization is
>occuring here. The decision to withdraw Boylan's license was not
>based specifically on his performing "abduction research".
>While I can't find a good refernce to provide specifics, which
>were posted to the "net" years ago, I believe it was related to
>his therapudic techniques and were not directly related to
>hypnotic regression or abduction research.  It would a serious
>error to imply that those who practice "abduction research" in
>California will have their licenses revoked, or that those who
>use "hypnotic regression" may face a similar fate.

>Kevin's statement is accurate, but could be taken to mean much
>more than I hope he had intended.  I would add that not all
>abuduction researchers are "enamoured" by hypnotic regression,
>and Kevin raises a good point when he mentions that there are
>numerous legal challenges involving "satanic ritual abuse", as
>well as "sexual abuse".

In 'The Abduction Enigma' we give the specifics of the troubles
that the "unnamed one" had in connection to his "research." He
had his license revoked for implanting "abduction" memories in,
at least, two of his clients. Both women believed they had been
victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse, or childhood sexual abuse. He
told them that they were actually victims of abduction and used
hypnotic regression to reinforce those views. The trouble was
not that "the unnamed one" had conducted abduction research but
that he implanted his own belief structure on his clients.

He is not alone in this. Edith Fiore also lost her license in
the state of California. While using past life regression to
treat a client, and using hypnotic regression to access the past
life was told by the client there was nothing there. Fiore's
comment was "Make it up." She also convinced a woman that she
had been abducted by alien creatures.

These are the two major examples of "researchers" implanting
their belief structures on their clients. Both had advanced
degrees and had been in practice for years. The point is, they
came to believe in alien abduction and then began to convince
their clients they too were victims of alien abduction.

It also demonstrates a real problem with abduction research. It
shows some of the problems with hypnotic regression. These are
not the only examples of researchers implanting their belief
structures on those they interview.

KRandle, Ph.D.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:55:56 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:00:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:54:48 -0400


>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:36:54 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]

>>and remember that these sorts of claims (Satanic and abduction)
>>can wreck people's lives.

>Documentation, please, on how abduction claims have wrecked
>lives.

>Anecdotes not welcome, since they can easily be countered with
>situations I've personally observed, in which people pulled
>themselves together by coming to terms with their reported
>abduction experiences.

Hi Greg, All -

Couldn't we turn this around and say, "Documentation please" on
alien abduction? Couldn't we say "Anecdotes not welcome..."
Aren't we working here with little in the way of documentation
of alien abduction?

I can supply some good documentation on Satanic Ritual Abuse
ruining lives. Paul Ingram is in jail because of his daughters'
claims of ritualistic abuse, his wife divorced him, and he, of
course, lost his job and house.

On the other hand, we can point to some abductees who've seen
their lives radically altered by tales of alien abduction. So
what if there are a few, some, many who have deal with alien
abduction easily or well. There are those who have not... but,
these would be some of the dreaded anecdotes.

KRandle, Ph.D.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:05:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:25:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: "Matthew Williams" <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:31:25 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>To note: Dr David Clarke recently discredited his own research,
>the fact of the matter is that Dr Clark maintains that the cause
>of the whole nights events was due to a covert low flying
>excercise which involved six tornados launched from RAF Marham
>that evening. This excerise culminated in a couple of pilots
>accidentally breachoing the sound barrier whilst performing mid
>air turns, which gave light to a number of misidentifications of
>said aircraft culminating in a number of UFO reports as well as
>a light aircraft etc etc et al.

>The problem is that the (Sheffield) seismic events occured at
>21.52 at 22.06 however from Dr Clarks own research PRO (Public
>Relations Officer) Ed Bullpit that all six aircraft were safely
>on the ground by 21.35 therefore how could the covert low flying
>excerise possibly be the cause for events which happened 17
>minutes and 31 minutes after the air group had landed
>respectively. The covert low flying excerise could not possibly
>be the explaintaion for the nights events. Unless Dr Clark can
>explain how landed aircraft can be the cause of such events, if
>that is your case Dr Clark, then you do not have a case. Please
>explain how this discrepancy could occur.

Max never fails to amaze and entertain. No one has to lead him
up the garden path, as he is quite capable of doing that
entirely by himself His ability to misinterpret, distort and
misreprent facts really does deserve some kind of special award;
as I've said before he is simply incapable of interpreting any
kind of evidence correctly. Nowhere have I ever claimed that six
specific aircraft from any specific airbase were the cause of
the sonic booms recorded near Sheffield on March 24, 1997.

That is a simple fact, something neither Max nor his
"Truthseeker" friends could bring themselves to accept.

For the benefit of the hard of hearing, I reproduce the relevant
section from the conclusions to my Howden Moor report which
demonstrates once again how Max is incapable of telling the
truth:

>There clearly was a military exercise taking place centred upon
>the Peak District that night, one phase of which (now officially
>admitted) is timed from 7.30-9.30pm, when the RAF claim all
>their aircraft were safely grounded and accounted for. However,
>the evidence from both witnesses in Derbyshire and South
>Yorkshire and the sonic booms recorded by the BGS suggest a
>covert part of this operation continued after the booked
>operation had been officially completed. Many more aircraft were
>involved in this exercise than has been officially admitted as
>is clear from the 13 low-flying complaints lodged with the RAF
>on March 24 from widely separated areas of the British
>coastline.

>It is clear that a formation of Tornado aircraft travelled
>across the Peak District on a southeast to northwest flightpath
>between 9.45 and 10pm, coinciding with the first of two sonic
>booms recorded 12 minutes apart from the Sheffield area.

Discredited my own research?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                              Truth In Numbers

From: Bob Kathman <BKathman@microprose.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:15:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:17:14 -0400
Subject: Truth In Numbers


>From: Kathleen Andersen <KAnder6444@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:27:18 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>I am currently working on an interview with Michio Kaku author
>of Hyperspace, Visions and Beyond Einstein. Yes even a scientist
>can keep an open mind. I like what he has to say:

>"99.9% of UFO sightings might be wrong, but it only takes one
>sighting to change the foundations of all our scientific
>knowledge"


This is interesting...I was just thinking about this the other
day but in relation to abductions. Some abductees have
commonality with others in their experiences, which seems to add
credence to their claims and yet, if there were not a single
correlation, that fact would still not be proof against their
reports. And, if there were only one, true abductee in the
world, their story would still be worth telling.

Curiously, UFO, crop circle, abduction and cattle mutilation
cases tend to come in multiples, as they are still with us over
time.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                          S4 Database - New Address

From: Olav Phillips <ophillips@imsn.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:52:55 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:24:32 -0400
Subject: S4 Database - New Address


Hi everyone,

I just wanted to let everyone know the S4 Database has a new URL
http://www.anomalies.net/

Unfortunatley our old address @icom.net is no longer
operational.

Please drop by and visit!  We have updated and expanded our file
archive to over 70,000 UFO/Paranormal files and images AND with
the new server we are activley working to expand the UFO
community into Cyberspace by donating free webspace to UFO
Researchers and groups.  So if you need webspace and your a UFO
researcher or research group please email me about free (no
strings) webspace. Its our way of giving back to the community
and trying to help out!  No ads no charges just free space..in
the near future we'll be able to provide DNS service also!

Hey thanx for your time,

Olav
System Administrator
The S4 Database
http://www.anomalies.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Royce J.Myers III <evidence@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:38:13 PDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:29:50 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:40:49 -0400

>Hello list

>>Phillip S. Duke Ph.D. Experimental Pathology announces
>>availability of his new Book titled 'The AIDS-ET Connection'.
>>Evidence is presented from Biomedicine and Ufology that HIVs and
>>their pandemics are of purposeful ET origin.

>Sorry, sir I don't buy your malicious crap.

And there seems to be quite a bit of it floating around in
ufology as of late. Good old Kinkos, anyone can publish a book
now.

<snip>

>>Described in the Book is a case where a male abductee with
>>implant tested HIV Positive until his implant was surgically
>>removed, after which he tested and remains HIV Negative.
>>Verified in writing by Dr. Roger K. Leir.

>>Dr. Mirko D. Grmek M.D. Ph.D. highly respected author of 'The
>>History Of AIDS', Princeton U. Press, stated "The epidemic's
>>spread is exponential justifying cataclysmic predictions." That
>>was in 1990. Do you think the situation has improved since then?

Let's do a little name dropping. Nothing like referencing people
with Ph.Ds. Please....

<snip>

>>My recent book 'The AIDS-ET Connection' goes into all these
>>issues and more. It is presently available for $19.95 total cost
>>from me at 2503 S. 47th Street Omaha NE 68106 USA. Also from
>>Amazon.com under Medicine/Disease/AIDS/HIV.

Amazon.com: "We'll sell anyhting with a profit margin." Let me
guess, the next book will connect E.Ts with the breaking up of
the phone company, the Monica Lewinsky incident, and the last
episode of Seinfeld.

>You know list folk, this is the kind of crap that make Ufology a
>laughingstock! AIDS is a great tragedy it is not to be made
>light of and I don't want to do that, but absurdity must be met
>with abusurdity. Who do you think you are to attribute Aliens or
>God to what is a Disease that is clearly human.

>-GT McCoy

It is sad to see that someone would try to sell you a book based
on a very sad and tragic disease.

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

              ******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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Judith Dale <judithdale@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:39:46 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:26:48 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:50:30 -0700

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:51:45 -0700
>>Subject: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>>From: Phillip S. Duke <drpduke@juno.com>

Greetings to All,

>>Hello list

>>Phillip S. Duke Ph.D. Experimental Pathology announces
>>availability of his new Book titled 'The AIDS-ET Connection'.
>>Evidence is presented from Biomedicine and Ufology that HIVs and
>>their pandemics are of purposeful ET origin.

>Sorry, sir I don't buy your malicious crap.

Can't say that I find this nonsense to be "malicious", but it
certainly is crap, IMHO.

>>The AIDS-ET Connection is a new unifying hypothesis which
>>logically, simply and neatly explains all cattle mutilation and
>>human abduction phenomena. A brief Letter titled "Is there an
>>AIDS-ET connection" was published in the Oct. MUFON UFO J. Forum
>>following which the author's work has been black listed by
>>MUFON.

>I wonder why.

Well, at least someone had some sense.

>>Described in the Book is a case where a male abductee with
>>implant tested HIV Positive until his implant was surgically
>>removed, after which he tested and remains HIV Negative.
>>Verified in writing by Dr. Roger K. Leir.

>>Did you know that all cattle mutilation body sites correspond
>>with possible HIV transmission sites in humans? That cattle are
>>relatively similar to humans genetically?

>Yep,a recent human cloning thechnique used cow eggs and human
>sperm/yolk (maybe there is somthing to the Minotaur
>fable?)

>_However_. AIDS has been duly documented its transmission also
>duly documented. Monkey bites, eating rare Monkey meat is how
>AIDS got into the human population. Not O'l Bossie. Pigs are
>closer to us, genetically - they're not ungluates for one. Two,
>Pigs have a a very simular overall genetic makeup, they suffer
>from simular diseases. Cows do not - I vote for the Oinkers
>being the medium of choice.

Yes, well, the CDC and WHO would like us to believe that the
origin of HIV lies in the Green Monkey. However, there is also
the theory that HIV was grown in the biological warfare labs,
which interestingly are often in the same companies that produce
vaccines. Actually, the very same labs that produced the first
Hepatitis B vaccines. Further, the epidemiological path of HIV
seems to follow the groups initially targeted for the first
Hepatitis B vaccine trials. The question, then, that arises, is
were those first Hepatitis vaccines contaminated with HIV? There
seems to be evidence indicating that they were. So, was it an
intentional contamination, or accidental? Given that the first
targeted groups to receive the vaccine were IV drug users and
homosexual men in L.A., New York City, and San Francisco, and
certain portions of the population in Africa, certainly there is
room for suspicion regarding intention.

I suppose if one is sufficiently paranoid, a case could be made
for ET involvement in the process. Perhaps, this is the case for
Dr. Duke.

>>Did you know that the physical exam human abductees receive very
>>much emphasizes possible locations of HIV transmission? That the
>>human body materials sampled including blood are all logical
>>choices to test for possible presence of HIV?

If in fact, some of us are being studied, biologically, by ETs,
I don't doubt that they would be interested in any illness such
as HIV infection. And, HIV, certainly is present in many cells
of an infected person. So what?

>Having to place myself in defense of the Aliens what unearthly
>good (or bad) would the transmission of a hard to get disease to
>the Human Population unless they were, ah, Purtian Aliens that
>wanted to control human immorality (I don't think so, we are
>capable of monumental immorality they'd have to do a zapping of
>the whole planet a la "Marvin the Martian" of Warner Bros. fame.)

Truly, there are many other, more effective, means to bring
about the demise of the Human Race.

>>Do you know how many people walking around have HIV? You don't?
>>Well, no one does, as there is no central reporting agency. All
>>test results are confidential.

>Yes, but keeping ones "pants zipped and yer wick dry" does
>wonders for the transmission of AIDS.

Indeed, HIV is not easy to contract. Infact, it is less
infectious than Hepatitis B, which is a much more hardy virus,
and present in vast quantities in the bodily fluids of those who
are infected. Much more so than HIV. Given the psychosocial
stigma associated with HIV, it probably is a good thing that
infection results are kept confidential.

>>Dr. Mirko D. Grmek M.D. Ph.D. highly respected author of 'The
>>History Of AIDS', Princeton U. Press, stated "The epidemic's
>>spread is exponential justifying cataclysmic predictions." That
>>was in 1990. Do you think the situation has improved since then?

No, but, if one avoids very specific unsafe behaviors, one will
not get infected.

>>My recent book 'The AIDS-ET Connection' goes into all these
>>issues and more. It is presently available for $19.95 total cost
>>from me at 2503 S. 47th Street Omaha NE 68106 USA. Also from
>>Amazon.com under Medicine/Disease/AIDS/HIV.

Well, this sounds like one more attempt to up the ante for
panic, hysteria, and paranoid delusions. To my way of thinking,
this piece of work has no place in the field of serious UFO/ET
investigation, or theories.

>You know list folk, this is the kind of crap that make Ufology a
>laughingstock! AIDS is a great tragedy it is not to be made
>light of and I don't want to do that, but absurdity must be met
>with abusurdity. Who do you think you are to attribute Aliens or
>God to what is a Disease that is clearly human.

GT, I am in complete agreement with you.

Blessings to all,

Judith





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                             Aurora 1897 - Again

From: Richard D. Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:02:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:33:09 -0400
Subject: Aurora 1897 - Again


Dear Jerome Clarke, Kevin Randle and List,

Thanks for your messages about the infamous Aurora Crash story.

As I wrote, I know rather well the "ancient UFO history"
subject - I have published a book about it in France.

What I wanted to know is what you think of the account of
Charlie C. Stephens interviewed by Jim Marrs in "Alien Agenda",
of the own account of Marrs saying that he had seen what he was
told to be the grave of the "alien pilot", of the picture of
this headstone and of the picture and story of the analysis by
Dr Tom Gray (University of North Texas).

All of them are in the Marrs's book. And remember that Jim Marrs
writes he continues to be undecided about the case.

Yes, the Aurora case seems to be one of the many hoaxes
among the interesting reports of the 1897 Airships wave. But,
as any good researcher might do, I don't like to see parts of a
story left without explanations.

Thanks in advance, and congratulations, Mr Randle.

RDN





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

               Re: New Images Placed On RPIT Site - "The Bird"

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:15:10 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:29:40 -0400
Subject: Re: New Images Placed On RPIT Site - "The Bird"


>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 12:11:03 -0800
>Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 10:58:22 -0500
>Subject: New Images Placed On RPIT Site

>All on UpDates,

>I've today place 2 new images on my web site that address more
>of the features in the "weather balloon" debris photographed on
>July 8th 1947 in Gen Ramey's office at Fort Worth Tx.


<snip>

>The 2 images can be accessed by following the links marked
>"updated 1st Jan 1999" from the webpage:

> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/ftw-pics/new-1/index.htm

>The new images are at the bottom of the 2 updated pages.
>Best Regards and a Happy New Year,

>Neil.

Or,

>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
>Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 08:24:47 +0100
>Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 23:31:32 -0400
>Subject: Re: Update from RPIT

>>Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 07:32:01 -0700
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>>Subject: Update from RPIT

>>Dear All,

>>I'd like to share with you some new and interesting finds from
>>our continuing review of the Fort Worth Photographs.
>>The attached image is a composite of sections taken from the
>>RamyAlone and the RameyDubose images, each shows some of the
>>smaller beam/foil debris.

>Neil,

>Much as I respect your intentions, I must say that I think you
>are seriously off-base on this part of your study. I see nothing
>in these photos but balloon and radar target debris, and I think
>it is really stretching things to try and make it anything else.
>I'm with you on the telegram, but not on this.

>Bob

Or,

>From: YourName - Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 03:52:48 -0700Fwd
>Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 00:51:18 -0400
>Subject: Re: Update from RPIT

<snip>

>Neil and team,

>After following this trail from the beginning I sure don't see
>much. I don't want to sound too snippy but cheesus, I've been
>looking at your images and if you can't get any better resoution
>or focus, I don't see anything more than indistinctirregularities.
>You read symbols out of blobs.

<snip>

>Josh


Neil, Bob, Josh, RPIT members & List,

I went back to some of the old mails and URLs  dealing with the
Ramey photos, and I was trying to find the same as RPIT had
found.

Referring to the following URL:

http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/ftw-pics/new-1/rmyem1x.gif

I can easily pick out the "2" like symbol, and I can see it is
_not a random mark_, but, the other observations I can hardly
figure out at all.

Instead, I can see some darker outlines of some kind of
"decorations" _close_ to the "2" symbol, and painted on the
material. They are located _between_ the two white circles A and
D, and the "2" symbol -- with the raised, "3-D" edges -- even
seems to form a part of these decorations.

Further, _my interpretation_ is that I seem to see outlines of
_a bird's head_, with the "beak" almost touching the "D", and I
see the bird's black eye (just follow the black line to the
left), and the outlines of the rest of the head as well. Above
the head (at the lower part within the "A circle") I can see
some decorations resembling "a bunch of flowers" ("tulips", or
even "slim" mushrooms?), or this might even be the tail feathers
of the bird, with the bird's head bent 90 degrees (relative to
the "feathers"). (The rest of "the bird's" body is disappeared
in white.....)

The more I concentrate on this, the more it looks like a bird!

(Many birds! In fact, I can see birds everywhere - especially
when I concentrate on the dark spots as eyes!)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:20:55 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:33:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:09:38 -0400
>From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Y'all,

>Well, you've got to laugh and admire at the gall of whoever was
>behind this hoax (which takes several readings before the full
>ramifications sink in). No doubt there will now be a flurry of
>'outraged' decent ufologists who are appalled at such a hoax
>being perpetrated on the 'UFO community'.

>They will be wrong.

>There is a long tradition of hoaxing within ufology and
>associated subjects, and careful hoax experiments can only be
>helpful. For example The Warminster hoax, MJ-12, the various
>crop circle hoaxes etc have all been tremendously useful in
>showing us just how witnesses experience, how investigators go
>about their business, how the media (both general and
>ufological) report a case and how the rumour mill spreads and
>mutates.

>This is very useful stuff to know indeed because when done under
>controlled conditions, where all the information is known and
>carefully documented, these hoaxes tell us a lot about as-yet
>'unidentified' cases.


Hi,

Just as an illustration on this sort of thing - in late l986  I
was contacted by a man claiming to be from the military and to
have reams of covert documents of what (in retrospect) were the
then unknown MJ 12 fiasco. What did I do? Ignore the request we
meet? Course not. But I did several things. I made sure (with
some effort) I did nothing alone and always had a back up
witness checking me through. When we met the shady witness in a
pub we used a ploy decided between us up front to get his car
licence plate, used contacts to trace him and did a lot of
background checking into his story after the meeting and prior
to the next scheduled meet - including tracing his place of work
and speaking to his colleagues.

This apparently scared our contact off and he never showed up as
arranged with the docs - although he did write with a fun letter
as to how he was arrested and had the papers confiscated. So we
lost out on getting the MJ 12 papers although we had a great
story (which is tokd in detail in 'From out of the Blue' for
those interested). Six months later Tim Good revealed MJ 12 to
the world and the rest is history, mystery and a dollop of
tripe.

Am I mad I missed out on a fortune and a best selling book?

Nope. Checking out this story from day one was the only sensible
thing to do. It ran the risk of putting off anyone who was
looking for a patsy who would believe anything without question.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:53:12 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:33:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Kathleen Andersen <KAnder6444@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:27:18 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: Bluehare Dark Peak <bluehare24@hotmail.com>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:29:45 GMT

>>ATTENTION UFOLOGISTS
>>A MESSAGE FROM GENIUS LOKI FOLLOWS

>>We are a group of people, active in UFO hoaxing since
>>the mid 80s, and going under the collective name of Genius Loki.
>>Some reading this document may think hoaxing is unacceptable
>>a waste of time which could be put to better use
>>investigating 'UFOs'. Show us a UFO and we will happily
>>investigate it!

>>We believe that if ufologists are unable to
>>determine that a case is hoaxed or not then they should stick
>>to watching sci-fi.. Stupidity within the subject of UFOlogy
>>has reached new peaks of intensity during the last two years.>>

>Can someone pass a message to this group and ask if they can
>next hoax God. For after all, I've never seen him/her/it. Some
>people spend their lives in search of God, many make a living
>talking about God, more than 90% of the planet worships a God
>but then that is all based on theory and not concrete evidence.

>Why must some of us have such closed minds to the existence of
>things unless we can touch it, see it, hear it or  smell it. If
>someone did not venture out and build a telescope we would never
>learn that there are real things beyond what our eyes can focus
>on. If someone didn't have the foresight  to build a microscope
>we would never learn of a minature world that lives on us and in
>us.

>I am currently working on an interview with Michio Kaku author
>of Hyperspace, Visions and Beyond Einstein. Yes even a scientist
>can keep an open mind. I like what he has to say:

>"99.9% of UFO sightings might be wrong, but it only takes one
>sighting to change the foundations of all our scientific
>knowledge"

>Kathleen Andersen
>MUFON State Section Director
>Seattle

>Yes even a skeptic once in a while!


Hi Kathleen,

I'm beginning to doubt that those with "closed minds" will ever
have a sighting, even if a 'FO lands in their driveway. Reality
is based on our perceptions and if we cannot stretch our minds
to accept anything beyond what society has told us it's alright
to believe in, how will we ever perceive a UFO?

Your point about God is a good one. How can we accept the
reality of God, who only a few bibical characters claimed to
have seen (and described as a UFO encounter) and, yet, not
believe in UFOs who so many around the globe have seen?

In fact, I rather believe that unless we do stretch our minds a
great deal, we will never find "proof" of UFOs. Perhaps it's
time the human race started to grow up and evolve past the five
senses and take notice of the evidence for other realities.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:39:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:33:07 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


>From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:33:04 -0300

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:51:45 -0700
>>Subject: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>>From: Phillip S. Duke <drpduke@juno.com>

>>Phillip S. Duke Ph.D. Experimental Pathology announces
>>availability of his new Book titled 'The AIDS-ET Connection'.
>>Evidence is presented from Biomedicine and Ufology that HIVs and
>>their pandemics are of purposeful ET origin.

>>The AIDS-ET Connection is a new unifying hypothesis which
>>logically, simply and neatly explains all cattle mutilation and
>>human abduction phenomena. A brief Letter titled "Is there an
>>AIDS-ET connection" was published in the Oct. MUFON UFO J. Forum
>>following which the author's work has been black listed by
>>MUFON.

>>Described in the Book is a case where a male abductee with
>>implant tested HIV Positive until his implant was surgically
>>removed, after which he tested and remains HIV Negative.
>>Verified in writing by Dr. Roger K. Leir.

>No, I don't think so. It is easier to believe that the USA government
>created the HIV virus.

>THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI
>Diretor Do Departamento de Publicao e Traduo Especializadas ( DEPTE -
>EBE-ET / Brasilia-Brasil)
>Director of the Publication Department and Specialized Translation
>ICQ - 35119615
>****** SE VOC NO  POLCIA NO USE ARMAS ************


I think is is still easier to believe that the disease arose
naturally, like other diseases. One horrible new disease
popped up and apparently died out in San Francisco recently.

A fast flesh eating microbe had contaminated some heroin that
drug users were injecting. Suddenly, the cases stopped as the
contaminated batch was used up I suppose.

Hardly a government plot IMHO.

- 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                      Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie

From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:04:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:33:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie


With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark" <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 09:20:40 PDT

>I find Peter's work at best of modest interest,
>his often smirky, immensely self-pleased prose generally
>unreadable.

It's good to know that Jerome can change his mind, after years
of maintaining how - though he might disagree with whatever I
had to say - he always found it interesting. This shows he is
open minded and tolerant and a very good egg.

But not terribly up to date. For years it has been an open
secret that I do not sleep on a bed but on a carefully
squared-up 10ft x 6ft x 7ft pile of unsold (frankly, my dear,
unsaleable) manuscripts of my lurid scribblings, and that the
majority of my income is in fact derived from selling
implausible-looking but highly effective items of S&M equipment
to fellow members of a number of gentlemen's clubs in St
James's. You bet I know a gland in an uproar when I see one.

But what, exactly, do Jerome's generously provided and variously
repeated literary opinions have to do with anything I said last
time around? Could it be that he does not want to gaze upon his
own peccadilloes, to which I so unkindly drew attention? It is
certainly true that he has been rather quiet about a major drift
of what I wrote, which (lest we forget) concerned his ethical
and moral self-contradictions.

>I am not willing to accept his tedious,
>self-serving rationale -- laced, typically, with ad-hominem
>remarks -- for not withdrawing and apologizing for his role in
>circulating a bogus allegation.

I am perfectly happy, if the facts so suggest, to apologize to
Budd Hopkins. I see no reason to apologize to Jerome or anyone
else who has no locus standi in the business.

I really do not care what Jerome is willing to accept or not
from me, or from anyone else. I do care a little more that he
misrepresents me quite so transparently. Those who represent
themselves as historians should be less economical with the
truth. Turning the telescope the right way round will also show
me in my true proportions.

best wishes
Pastime D. Monopoly





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                             Re: Hypnotic Abuse

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 99 20:01:10 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:33:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:40:57 EDT
>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:03:10 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
>>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse

>>>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:50:59 -0700
>>>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.co
>>>>>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:19:21 EDT
>>>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>>>>To: updates@globalserve.net


Kevin,

>He is not alone in this. Edith Fiore also lost her license in
>the state of California. While using past life regression to
>treat a client, and using hypnotic regression to access the past
>life was told by the client there was nothing there. Fiore's
>comment was "Make it up." She also convinced a woman that she
>had been abducted by alien creatures.

>These are the two major examples of "researchers" implanting
>their belief structures on their clients. Both had advanced
>degrees and had been in practice for years. The point is, they
>came to believe in alien abduction and then began to convince
>their clients they too were victims of alien abduction.

I don't find these to be particularly compelling examples.  Did
you ever meet the late Edith Fiore?  She was a serious nut case
and in no sense a ufologist (not, of course, that -- God help us
-- one _can't_ be a nut case and a ufologist).  She had
wide-ranging New Age views and a long history as a mystical
seeker, including involvement with a sex-and-saucer cult run by
the notorious contactee/charlatan Dick Miller. Her book on
abductions was laughable, as were her books on satanic
possession and reincarnation.  I once heard her relate -- with a
straight face -- that in a previous life one of her patients had
been an alien who died at Roswell.


To me, Fiore tells us little if anything about ufology or
abduction research, but she does tell us that -- advanced
degrees notwithstanding -- someone can be certified as a
psychologist or a psychiatrist and yet be at the least
temperamentally unqualified, at the worst dangerous to her
clients.

Charges that people's lives have been ruined by mental-health
professionals have been leveled against some of the leading
lights, including Freud and Jung. (A small library of books
exists on the harm these two alone allegedly did, and a larger
library documents abuse by less prominent psychological
professionals.)  Within the context of abduction experience, one
would have no trouble collecting horror stories, I'm sure, by
abductees whose testimony was treated as self-evident proof of
mental disorder by psychotherapists -- thus adding false
anxieties and charges to the stress the abductees were already
undergoing.

>It also demonstrates a real problem with abduction research. It
>shows some of the problems with hypnotic regression. These are
>not the only examples of researchers implanting their belief
>structures on those they interview.

It also demonstrates a real problem with psychology and
psychiatry, where one can find many examples of mental-health
professionals implanting their belief structures on those they
interview.  Complacent belief in the superiority of
psychotherapists over sensitive, experienced abduction
researchers is unwarranted.  At the very least the question is
still very much an open one.

Congratulations on the Ph.D., by the way.  Use it 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:48:55 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:33:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


Regarding:

>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:06:50 -0400
>From: Bluehare Dark Peak <bluehare24@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


Whilst appreciating the 'funny side' of this, there's another
side which ain't remotely amusing.

We are all prey for malicious 'sincerity' and no matter how
credible it may seem, it's, regrettably, always sensible to have
reservations about any witness testimony.

Trusteth no-one...

I don't know Max Burns at all. I do know that I empathise with
the situation he faced and appreciate the dilemma in determining
what is a reliable witness account. Especially when the witness
is so 'sincere'. Or should that be deceitful.

Today Max Burns, maybe your turn tomorrow.


Publishing Max's private e-mail transcends distasteful to become
reprehensible and there's no entitlement to any kudos in that
respect.

Incidentally, I note that Max did express his reservations about
the information given.


The danger is encouraging such amateur 'hoaxers' and giving the
impression that elementary deception supports their condescending
self acclimation.

Anyone can be dishonest. Maybe it just takes a bit more courage
to say 'I'm a liar and this is my name'.


As Tim Matthews said re another UK 'hoax':

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/mar/m11-016.shtml

'What has the world come to when people are prepared to go to
such extraordinary lengths to try and mislead researchers?'


James.
E-mail: voyager@ukonline.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Phillip S Duke <drpduke@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:37:25 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:27:20 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:50:30 -0700

Dear Mr. McCoy,

I respond to your post in which you publicly characterize my
recent book 'The AIDS-ET Connection' as "malicious crap" and
"the kind of crap that makes ufology a laughingstock" along with
several other derogatory statements.

Scientifically speaking, the issue of how HIVs originated is
quite unsettled. I refer you to "Inventing The AIDS Virus" by
respected molecular biologist Dr. Peter Duesberg with Foreword
by Nobel Prize winner Dr. Kary Mullis. The book's thesis is that
HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. What is your position on this
important question? What evidence do YOU base it on?

In my correspondence the existence of the black list has not
been denied. Its purpose is to suppress knowledge of my work.
That is "why?"

It appears your understanding of human science cloning
procedures is imperfect. So far only the gray aliens have
produced alien/human hybrids. I refer you to Dr. David M.
Jacobs' 1998 book The Threat. It is all on this important
subject.

The "monkey bite" idea is politically correct just like the
"Roswell balloons" etc. If you buy one you buy both as they are
brought you as part of the same politically correct package.
There is no good evidence for the monkey bite idea despite the
government's trying hard. SimianIV (which does not make the
monkeys sick) is very very different fom HIV-1. SimianIV is
never found in humans. _Never_.

Yes, pigs and people may seem to resemble each other at times,
but genetic analysis by Dr. Womack at the U. of Texas and others
shows there is more genetic homology between humans and cattle.
Also, cattle are easier to come by in secret and have more
blood. And they are cleaner. All good reasons to use them not
pigs.

You characterize HIV as a "hard to get" disease. According to
AmFAR by 2000 AD 110 million people will have HIV of which 10
million are children. According to Dr. Grmek M.D. Ph.D.the
spread is "exponential" with "cataclysmic" expectations. As you
say, all that's necessary to control transmission is to control
people's sexual activities. Is that easy? Likely? You know the
answer.

Sexual transmission along with a 10 year asymptomatic infectious
period assures maximizing HIV spread along with AIDS in the
25-44 age range. How else can you assure that people in the
prime of life will sicken and die? Only by sexual transmission.

When enough people are sick, dying and dead, which will be
sooner than you think (if you ever think) human civilization
will collapse. Eliminating organized human opposition to The
Day.

The whole planet _is_ being "zapped" as you put it. You just
don't know it.

You never commented on my factual statements concerning cattle
mutilation sites and human abduction examination sites
corresponding with HIV body transmission sites. Nor on the
abductee whose HIV test changed with his implant removal. How do
you explain these facts? FACTS. Not funny (to you) criticisms
without basis. But _facts_.

And in closing, I appreciate your statement "solid advice" but
in fact I only put this in for legal protection. Medical
assistance may well prolong life. Whether or not this is a
blessing I leave to your judgment. Visit your local pediatric
AIDS ward and find out. Yes, if the Mother has HIV, probably the
infant will too...

Finally, regarding your angry statements "Who do you think you are..."
I reply thusly:

I am a graduate of the UCLA College of Letters and Sciences with
the B.S. in Chemistry. I am a graduate of the USC School of
Medicine Department of Pathology with the Ph.D. in Experimental
Pathology.

Tell me, what scientific degrees do YOU have? My graduate
training was paid for by NIH. They knew I was worth it. What
were YOU worth to them?

I did a year's Postdoctoral training working with Dr. Denham
Harman, originator of the Free Radical Theory of Aging. I
numbered two Nobel Prize winners among my teachers.

How many Nobel Prize winners did _you_ train with?

I published my research work in prestigious journals such as
Molecular Pathology, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., etc. How about YOU?

I was formerly owner and Director of Duke Laboratories in
Illinois. We were licensed by the CDC, FDA, etc. I held all the
licenses personally. How about YOU?

I could go on further but you should get it by now. If not just
forget it.

Mr. McCoy, you are correct when you say that AIDS is a "Disease
that is clearly human." Monkeys and other animals do not get it.
Only humans do.

Why is that?

Just why are the gray aliens here?

There is only one form of cosmic wealth and that is real estate.
You are losing yours along with a lot of other people. They are
stealing your birthright as a human being and you don't know it.

The evidence that HIV/AIDSs are purposeful ET alien creations is
all laid out in my book. Get the book and read it and then if
you want criticize. But please don't criticize what you don't
know about and don't understand. Thank you.

I reply to your negative quotation regarding cats, dogs and pigs
as follows, with one by a person whose teachings you are
obviously not familiar with.

"Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
underfoot and then turn and rend you." Jesus of Nazareth.

Phillip S. Duke Ph.D.
drpduke@juno.com





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                              Re: RIPT & MJ-12

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:18:34 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: RIPT & MJ-12


Re: RIPT & MJ-12

>From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:37:14 +0100
>Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:55:07 -0400
>Subject: Re: RIPT & MJ-12

Previously, Neil had offered:

>The paper is also clearly not a teletype message, as Kevin
>points out teletype machines used (and still do) continuous roll
>paper which is just torn away as the message is complete, this
>makes a large "letter heading" on the paper impossible if it
>were teletype output.

 <snip>

>And the document seems to mention:

>"4"  "VICTIMS"  "WRECK" "CONVAY" "CRASHES" "MIDDAY" "STORY ADV"
>and might I also offer "EVEN PUT THEORY WEATATN BALLOONS"

Hi, Neil.

Some things I thought I'd throw into the mix.

First, when I was a kid, there was an old (or I suppose new, at
that time) teletype machine at the TV station where my father
worked. The type it put out was identical to that of an old
Remington typerwriter my parents still have. Therefore, I'm not
sure that based on type, alone, could someone determine whether
the memo in question originated from a teletype machine though
some teletypes used upper case only.

Second, I remember the news guys bitching and moaning about how
unreliable the teletype was. Things were always coming in
spelled incorrectly due to machine error (as well as error on
the part of the original "typist", I'm sure).

Third, the feed on the machine was not always on the mark, which
resulted in uneven lines of type more often than not. As we've
become used to laser printers and ink jet printers, it's good to
remember that some of the old equipment wasn't always up to
snuff, even when hitting on all cylinders! (hell, my ink jet
printer still screws up from time to time)

And lastly, the news department had a habit of stamping the top
of a teletype after it came in, for whatever reason. I'm not
familiar with the habits of the military back in those days. Is
it possible that they, too, stamped teletypes upon receipt? If
so, it might explain the "header" at the top of the memo. Just a
thought...






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:00:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:55:56 EDT
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>Documentation, please, on how abduction claims have wrecked
>>lives.

>>Anecdotes not welcome, since they can easily be countered with
>>situations I've personally observed, in which people pulled
>>themselves together by coming to terms with their reported
>>abduction experiences.

>Hi Greg, All -

>Couldn't we turn this around and say, "Documentation please" on
>alien abduction? Couldn't we say "Anecdotes not welcome..."
>Aren't we working here with little in the way of documentation
>of alien abduction?

Perfectly reasonable. Though there's quite a large literature on
abductions, where the anecdotal reasons for believing in them
are set forth in great detail. There are also Eddie Bullard's
studies, which put some scientific heft behind the proposition
that something not readily explainable is going on (or at least
not explainable by some of the familiar attempts at
explanation). There's also Stuart Appelle's paper in JUFOS,
which sets forth the difficulties in accepting the belief that
abductions are real, but also sets forth the equal difficulties
in believing -- at the present state of available evidence --
that they aren't.

Claims like John Rimmer's are, by contrast, made very casually,
with, as far as I know, no supporting documentation, no deep
argument, not even any mustering of data pro and con. That's why
I asked for documentation -- not to be a brat, not to answer his
snipe with one of my own, but in the hope that he'd provide
some, so this wretched argument could be elevated to at least an
elementary level of rational discourse.

Stewart's paper grows more relevant every day. I'm not saying he
has the answers to all our questions -- but he's merciless in
saying which theories have been advanced without much data to





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:18:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:55:56 EDT
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>On the other hand, we can point to some abductees who've seen
>their lives radically altered by tales of alien abduction. So
>what if there are a few, some, many who have deal with alien
>abduction easily or well. There are those who have not... but,
>these would be some of the dreaded anecdotes.

That's why anecdotes are treacherous. I know or have heard of
people whose lives have been hurt by heavy metal, on-line chat
rooms, and rollerblading. Should I start crusading to prove
those things are harmful? I know someone who ruined herself
financially because she was obsessed with a world-famous opera
diva, and followed the singer around the world, attending every
performance she gave. Does this mean opera is a problem?

It's tempting to think we know something because we can tell
stories that support our point of view. I can't tell you the
number of interviews I gave, articles I wrote, radio shows I
went on to participate in arguments about hiphop (or rap music,
as some people might call it). Was it dangerous? Did it cause
violence? Often the hosts of these radio shows would have an
anecdote or two. Almost never did they have any real information
about the subject; they had no idea, for instance, of how many
people were taken off the street by hiphop, how many kids formed
businesses, how many people left gang life forever.

The point of that story isn't to say that I was right, or that
the radio hosts were right. The point is to say that we can't
decide anything without real information. If you want to know
whether hiphop is good or bad, first acquaint yourself with the
entire field. Learn how it works, hear story after story, until
you can decide which kind of story really dominates. Even
better, get real, objective quantitative data.

It's the same with abductions. It's pointless to tell stories of
people hurt by believing they'd been abducted, and equally
pointless, from a scientific point of view, for me to say that
people have been helped by coming to accept that belief. I only
tell my stories to balance the other side, to say that the
stories don't all go one way. What's missing on both sides is,
again, quantitative data. How many people have been helped by
accepting that they think they've been abducted, how many have
been hurt?

Until we have solid information, we're stuck in a vacuum. And
we'll all just repeat the stories that support our own point of





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                             Re: Hypnotic Abuse

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:26:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse

>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:40:57 EDT
>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:03:10 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
>>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse

>>>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:50:59 -0700
>>>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.co
>>>>>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:19:21 EDT
>>>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>>>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>>><snip>

>>>>>Not quite true. Richard Boylan has already been taken to court
>>>>>because of his "abduction research." He lost his license to
>>>>>practice in California because of it. It proved nothing about
>>>>>the reality of UFOs or abductions, but did demonstrate, at least
>>>>>some of the problems with hypnotic regression and researcher
>>>>>bias.

Hi Kevin, hi All,

Kevin writes:

>These are the two major examples of "researchers" implanting
>their belief structures on their clients. Both had advanced
>degrees and had been in practice for years. The point is, they
>came to believe in alien abduction and then began to convince
>their clients they too were victims of alien abduction.

And we should bring back 'keelhauling' for anyone who engages in
such practices. What I find disturbing is that the implication
is that even trained/skilled professionals can't be trusted  to
do a competent (or honest) job when it comes to abduction. So
where do we turn? Only to 'groups' of professionals who can then
police themselves? Maybe only institutions can be trusted to do
an honest and competent job. But then, there are no "groups of
professionals" or "trusted institutions" doing the research, is
there?

>It also demonstrates a real problem with abduction research. It
>shows some of the problems with hypnotic regression.

The real "problem" Kevin, is that there are _no_responsible_
mainstream professionals or institutions taking on the
research! When you involve 'amateurs' in anything you're going
to get a very mixed bag of individual competence and ethics.
Thus far, just about all of the investigating and so called
research has been carried out by amateurs (in some cases
opportunists) who merely stepped into the vacuum left by
professionals. (ie; scientists, health care pros, etc.)

Rather than stumping for the rooting out of incompetent
amateurs, or abolishing the use of hypnosis, (whose validity as
a therapuetic tool or means of memory retrieval is still very
much an open question) the energy might be better spent
convincing professionals that there is something worthy of
investigating. Something worthy of their time and their
resources.

Like it or not, believe it or not, _many_ human lives worldwide
are being affected by this phenomenon. How many people have to
report before the institutions and professionals that we rely on
for help and answers begin to get involved? I am astounded at
the condescensions and complete apathy that that community
(academic) has demonstarted so far. I mean for Christs' sake,
where are all the psychiatrists/psychologists in all of this?
Everybody is ready to point out what is wrong, but no one seems
interested in getting it done right.

(If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the
problem!)

I've been whistling this tune for six years. Many others for
much longer. Maybe it will have to progress in the same way that
AIDs awareness did. At first, the good ole 'Moral Majority' kind
of ignored it because after all it was only affecting those
ungodly, degenerate, homosexuals. That is, until people began to
realize that those who were dying from AIDs were their own
brothers, sisters, friends, and coworkers. It wasn't until the
epidemic was brought home to their own doorsteps that the public
began to -demand- research and action. I'm waiting to see how
long it takes before the needs of so very many ordinary people
who are reporting abduction finally gets the attention
of/acknowledged by, the mainsteam scientific community.

Most of us already know what's wrong Kevin. What I'd like to
know is, when do we unite in an effort (begin expending energy)
towards getting it done right, and by the right people?

As they used to say in my old 'hood', "So far, it's all just so
much rap!"

Peace,

John Velez, UFO abduction *victim

(*Yes, -victim-   I didn't ask for -any- of this!)


________________________________________________
                                 jvif@spacelab.net
                    ABDUCTION INFORMATION CENTER
                            http://www.if-aic.com/
 "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                    Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:47:14
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952


Source: "alt.alien.research".

Stig

***

From: Kooolhand@webtv.net (Jim Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.research
Subject: UFO Phenomena
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:12:08 -0400 (EDT)


--WebTV-Mail-125815488-91
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

I've been pondering this UFO business since personally observing
the big flap around D. C. in the 50's while on duty at Bolling
AFB.

There were hard radar targets - several - moving at fantastic
speeds. We went out on the flightline after scrambling several
fighters to intercept them to watch the show, and it was a
spectacular one to see.

These lights accomplished some incredible maneuvers, impossible
even with today's aircraft.

Nobody had a clue as to what we were witnessing, except that it
was unearthly, or unexplainable, to say the least.

There was never an acceptable AF explanation to describe what
we, and thousands of others, witnessed. I'm still stumped, but I
now have a theory for all to comment on: perhaps these craft are
beings from another dimension parallel to our earth, but in a
different time-space continuum....they can enter our space when
they wish, but we can't enter, or even see theirs, which is far
advanced from ours.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                             Re: Hypnotic Abuse

From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:07:17 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse


>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>To: 02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers:;
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Hypnotic Abuse
>Date: 22 June 1999 15:51

>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:23:17 +0100

>>From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]
>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:26:28 +0100

>>No group in Northern England sanctions is as far as I can tell
>>and this has been in force for many years - which is perhaps
>>why we don't have as many 'alien abductions' over here...?

>Regarding the above I wonder if this is the case for most
>Southern UFO Research groups? be interesting to find out.

>So here is the question: If you are a member of a Southern UFO
>Research team do you use the methods of hypnotic regression when





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:31:56 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:31:25 +0100

>Now a note from Matthew Williams.

>I think that the act of hoaxing for negative reasons is a bad
>one. The reasons put forward by the "hoaxers" show their motives
>are less than honorable. Indeed they feel the need to use
>anonymous email addresses to hide behind because if their
>identies were known they would be universally shunned by the
>UFO community for their activities.

>However in my experience this
>type of behaviour is typical of what I am terming "northern
>ufology". This is not to damn all Northern Ufologists of who
>there are many, but to highlight an ALARMING trend in certain
>circles for this type of hoaxing and time wasting. Most of this
>behaviour seems to be taking place "up north", and involves a
>very well known band of not so merry people. Many readers out
>there are probably aware of who these people are and their
>motives and may have seen some of their other "hoax" works in
>the past.


I think what is on display regarding this whole minor ( I
apologise for dented ego's regarding that remark) Northern UFO
group of people is nothing more than an excellent piece of
Networking, and for that they must be commended.

It's all about good lines of communication and well they seem to
have mastered 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:05:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


With the compliments of the Duke of mendoza:

>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:39:46 -0700
>From: Judith Dale <judithdale@earthlink.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

>Yes, well, the CDC and WHO would like us to believe that the
>origin of HIV lies in the Green Monkey. However, there is also
>the theory that HIV was grown in the biological warfare labs,
>which interestingly are often in the same companies that
>produce vaccines.

Here are the antidotes to this kind of factoid:

In the USA and Europe in the 1980s and '90s there were
suspicions that HIV had reached the human population through
vaccines, in particular a batch of live polio vaccine that was
created using African green monkey cells. This was used in
Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi between 1957 and 1960. An American
scientific panel examined the evidence in 1992-3, and concluded
the vaccines were free of HIV. A major problem with the
'contaminated vaccine' theory was that the HIV-1 and SIV viruses
are genetically so far apart that it was virtually impossible
for the SIV to have mutated into HIV-1 in such a short timespan.
It was suggested too that viruses in smallpox vaccine grown on
cow cells had reacted with bovine leukemia viruses to produce
HIV, but this theory too collapsed when it was shown that the
DNA of the two microorganisms were incapable of combining.
Astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe declared
their conviction that the AIDS virus came from outer space. The
two British scientists have long maintained that many
epidemic-inducing microbes arrive on meteorites, asteroids and
minor comets entering the Earth's atmosphere. The distinguished
astronomers have consistently ignored biologists' objections
that the microbes would be wiped out by a combination of
ultra-violet light in outer space and the heat generated when
the space debris enters the atmosphere.

Then came the conspiracy theorists. One of the first was British
doctor John Seale, who published an article in the Journal of
the Royal Society of Medicine in 1985 that claimed the US Army
had concocted HIV out of genetic material from viruses causing
bovine leukemia, visna in sheep, lentiviruses from horses and
goats, and human T-cell leukemia/lymphocyte virus. The recipe,
Seale said, had been cooked up at Fort Detrick, Maryland, in
1977. Lying behind Seale's thesis were two articles that had
appeared the same year in Literaturnaya Gazeta, the journal of
the Soviet Writer's Union, and told much the same story.
According to Professor S. Drozdov of the Research Institute of
Poliomyelitis and Encephalitis in Moscow, the CIA had let the
virus loose by testing it on federal prisoners in the USA and in
the field in Africa.

None of these claims bore much relation to scientific or to
historical facts. The earliest identified AIDS cases date back
to 1959, when the concept of genetic coding was unknown. Reverse
transcriptase was discovered in 1970, and retroviruses were
discovered in people in 1978. But it was not until 1983 that the
technique of polymerase chain reaction, which revolutionized
research into and manipulation of DNA, was invented. Essentially
the cloning technology that the 'invention' of HIV requires did
not exist in 1977. In 1986, the Soviets admitted they had their
own cases of AIDS, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989
the Soviet Academy of Sciences apologized for disseminating the
notion that AIDS was an American invention, an idea that, it
admitted, had been inspired by the KGB. The US State Department
had already concluded as much, and believed the accusations were
designed to discredit the USA in developing countries.

Facts have never stood in the way of a good conspiracy theory,
however. In 1996 Dr Leonard G. Horowitz, a dental health expert
and former faculty member of Tufts and Harvard Universities,
published (at his own expense) a 592-page hardcover 'expose' -
Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional?
- of the links between AIDS, the National Institutes of Health,
US biological warfare research establishments and an almost
inevitable list of several favorite targets of conspiracy
addicts, such as the Rockeller family, the CIA, the Council on
Foreign Relations, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Nixon
administrations of 1968-74. According to Dr Horowitz's book,
AIDS researcher Dr Robert Gallo did not discover HIV in 1984,
but had already invented it by 1971. (One is amazed that Dr
Gallo has refrained from legal action.) The virus was deployed
in Africa as a means of population control, and the whole plot
was originally put together by Dr Henry Kissinger as early as
1969.

Dr Horowitz also claims that 'the world's most feared and deadly
viruses' - Marburg and Ebola - were likewise man-made, and
'share the dubious distinction of breaking out in or around
areas of CIA/NATO operations' in Africa, and were put to good
use in diplomatic blackmail. NATO does not operate in Africa.
Circumstantial evidence and a powerful belief system can prove
almost anything. Horowitz's 'critical examination' of 'the New
York Times bestselling "nonfiction" book The Hot Zone by Richard
Preston ... reveals Preston's book is undoubtedly
counterintelligence propaganda seemingly intended to prepare the
world for future epidemics and additional virus outbreaks.'
(Horowitz says rather breathlessly that a 'a final serendipitous
discovery identified ... Preston as the recipient of a $20,000
literary grant from the Sloan Foundation', a fact that could be
gleaned by looking at the first few pages of the book.)

But the point of conspiracy theories is less to satisfy logic
than to articulate and dramatize emotions. In the case of AIDS,
the blaming ritual that conspiracy theory requires has
amalgamated moral disgust and social and racial stereotyping.
The Reagan administration's unwillingness to commit funds to HIV
and AIDS research stemmed from a disbelief that AIDS would ever
affect heterosexuals, despite growing evidence to the contrary.
The disease had already quarantined itself, in this view, and
had conveniently done so among a group of people whose way of
life was morally and physically repugnant to the decision
makers. Behind them stood a phalanx of right-wing religious
bigots only too ready to proclaim that gays had brought their
plague upon themselves: 'AIDS is a judgement of God,' thundered
the Rev. Billy Graham, and was echoed by television evangelist
and Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell: 'AIDS is God's
punishment. The scripture is clear: We do reap it in our flesh
when we violate the laws of God.' Alabama senator Jeremiah
Denton was reported to have said unequivocally, 'Let the faggots
die.'

By the late 1980s, the claim that AIDS was a product of
biological warfare experiments in Africa had metamorphosed itself
to haunt the imagination as home-grown folklore. On the political
fringe, groups such as the United Front Against Racism and
Capitalist Oppression could maintain that that AIDS was
'bio-warfare directed mainly against gays' by the CIA. But by
this time the threat to heterosexuals was widely recognized, and
so among many African Americans the legend grew - along with the
disproportionate spread of AIDS in the black community - that the
biological 'war' was a genocidal attack on them. This was not a
belief limited to separatist groups or black nationalists,
although it was certainly endorsed by them. Stephen Thomas and
Sandra Quinn, from the University of Maryland, polled black
Americans in seven states between 1988 and 1990 on attitudes to
the disease. Nearly 40 per cent of the black college students
surveyed in Washington, DC, agreed with the statement: 'I believe
there is some truth in reports that the AIDS virus was produced
in a germ-warfare laboratory.' Still more disturbing was the
finding that of 999 black churchgoers, one third agreed strongly
with the statement: 'I believe AIDS is a form of genocide against
the black race.'

Against this backcloth it becomes all the more urgent to promote
some rational, fact-based approach to the causes of AIDS and
emerging diseases.

Incidentally, it's also not true that the numbers of AIDS
infections, nationally or globally, is not tracked. But national
pride in some Third World countries and simple lack of medical
infrastructure in others make the figures not entirely reliable.

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

FURTHER READING
Berridge, Virginia: AIDS in the UK (Oxford University Press) 1996
Conner, S. & Kingman, S: The Search for the Virus (Penguin) 1988
Epstein, Steven: Impure Science (University of California Press)
1996
Fisher-Hoch, S. & McCormick, J.B: The Virus Hunters (Bloomsbury)
1996
Garrett, Laurie: The Coming Plague (Penguin) 1995
Gould, Peter: The Slow Plague (Blackwell) 1993
Karlen, Arno: Plague's Progress (Victor Gollancz) 1995
 Mack, Arien(ed): In Time of Plague (New York University Press)
1991
McNeill, William H.: Plagues and Peoples (Basil Blackwell) 1977
Porter, Roy: Disease, Medicine and Society in England, 1550-1860
(Cambridge University Press) 1995
Preston, Richard: The Hot Zone (Random House) 1994
Rosenberg, Charles: Explaining Epidemics (Cambridge University
Press) 1992
Wills, Christopher: Plagues (HarperCollins) 1996






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                          On Firmage's UFO Theories

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:57:16
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: On Firmage's UFO Theories


Source: Red Herring,

http://www.herring.com:80/insider/1999/0622/cip-firmage.html

Stig

***

Big Fish: is Joe Firmage an Internet genius?

By Paul Kapustka
Redherring.com
June 22, 1999

**

In case you haven't noticed, Joe Firmage is in the news again.
Written off for his outlandish views on UFOs (among other
topics), Mr. Firmage last week resurrected his business persona
by unveiling a "venture construction firm" called Intend Change,
which he will lead as a founding partner.

So is Joe still a nut, or is he once again a business genius? Is
he neither, or a little of both? Will his new company become a
market success in the startup-development space, in the way that
his last company, USWeb/CKS (Nasdaq: USWB), became a leader in
the Web-design field? Will Joe flake out again as he advances
his scientific theories and social agendas? For now, Mr.
Firmage's remergence raises many questions -- which you might
want answered before doing business with him.

With the launch of Intend Change, Mr. Firmage has reinvented
himself as a venture catalyst, a self-proclaimed Internet expert
whose new firm will turbocharge your nascent business plan,
outfit you with a seasoned management team and some shiny
venture dollars, and otherwise grease the skids for a successful
IPO or big-buck acquisition. All that for a modest 10 percent
stake in your company. Sound good? But wait, there's more.


CHECK THOSE BAGS


And it's stuff you may not want. Though he went through great
pains to distance his scientific theories from Intend Change's
business at last week's press event, Mr. Firmage firmly intends
to imbue Intend Change with his personal zeal. That means both a
commitment from Intend Change's founders to contribute half
their equity to nonprofit, charitable activities and a
no-excuses continuation by Mr. Firmage of his extracurricular
extraterrestrial activities. Is the business opportunity worth
the baggage? Those close to Mr. Firmage seem to think so.

The prevailing sentiment among Mr. Firmage's friends and
coworkers is that he is something of a genius, who sees things
in a way mere mortals cannot. Some people who know him well
won't even discount Mr. Firmage's outlandish UFO theories, even
in private conversation.

"If it were anyone else, I'd say they were crazy," says one
business associate of Mr. Firmage's, when asked for an opinion
on the UFO matters. "But I've learned not to question Joe,
because more often than not, he is correct."

Without question, Mr. Firmage is in possession of a serious
intellect. Those choosing to match wits with him would be well
advised to do their homework, because (as shown by the depth of
his writings and speeches) Mr. Firmage will most certainly have
done his. Armed with an extensive vocabulary, technical smarts,
and pure marketer's charm, Mr. Firmage has certainly convinced
those close to him that he is no wacko.


(SOME) MEN ARE FROM MARS


Some of his closest compatriots, including his partner Toby
Corey, seem to regard Mr. Firmage with a sort of reverence, an
emotion they are not at all ashamed to show in public. Other
business partners at least seem willing to overlook Mr.
Firmage's shortcomings. Robert Shaw, the current CEO of
USWeb/CKS, tried to convince us that he's "never had a client
ask me" about Mr. Firmage's radical scientific views. Please.
Where have the clients been for the past few months -- on Mars?

OK, that's a cheap shot. But genius is a big title, and one
we're not sure Mr. Firmage lives up to yet. Certainly, his
business track record is a successful one. First, he started up
and sold a company (Serius, a software tools firm) to Novell
(Nasdaq: NOVL) for $24 million before he could legally rent a
car; then, he and Mr. Corey (along with another ex-Novell
executive, Sheldon Laube) launched USWeb in 1995, taking it to a
public-market offering that made them millionaires. Not bad for
someone who's still waiting to celebrate his 30th birthday.

But USWeb's success story is more one of elbow grease and good
timing than of Internet genius. Certainly, the market has not
given USWeb/CKS the valuation of a landscape-changing force like
Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN) or eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY). Perhaps Mr.
Firmage has worthy connections and some good business lessons to
teach. But in a market saturated with advice and investment
dollars, are his smarts worth the baggage they come with? And
are they worth 10 percent of your company?

It's a question for entrepreneurs to answer. Mr. Firmage, open
for business again, awaits your call.


Related links:

*Intend Change's partners stand behind Mr. Firmage.
*The May 1999 Red Herring reviewed Mr. Firmage's tome, "The Truth."
*Mr. Firmage had a lot to say about our review.

*Intend Change
*USWeb/CKS





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:27:19 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:02:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:05:41 -0400
>From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:31:25 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

>For the benefit of the hard of hearing, I reproduce the relevant
>section from the conclusions to my Howden Moor report which
>demonstrates once again how Max is incapable of telling the
>truth:

>>There clearly was a military exercise taking place centred upon
>>the Peak District that night, one phase of which (now officially
>>admitted) is timed from 7.30-9.30pm, when the RAF claim all
>>their aircraft were safely grounded and accounted for. However,
>>the evidence from both witnesses in Derbyshire and South
>>Yorkshire and the sonic booms recorded by the BGS suggest a
>>covert part of this operation continued after the booked
>>operation had been officially completed. Many more aircraft were
>>involved in this exercise than has been officially admitted as
>>is clear from the 13 low-flying complaints lodged with the RAF
>>on March 24 from widely separated areas of the British
>>coastline.

>>It is clear that a formation of Tornado aircraft travelled
>>across the Peak District on a southeast to northwest flightpath
>>between 9.45 and 10pm, coinciding with the first of two sonic
>>booms recorded 12 minutes apart from the Sheffield area.



Hi,

I can only add one bit to this. Its not something I have thought
of retrospectively. I told David about it two years ago and
wrote about it in my first summary of the case (Northern UFO
News 176 - June l997 issue)

I live in a village just north of Buxton in the Peak District.
As the aircraft flies that is very close to the sighting
location to my north east. That night both my mother and I were
in the garden as I was showing her the then bright comet
Hale-Bopp with my binoculars. We went back in around 7:30 to
watch Coronation Street on TV (couldn't miss that could we?) But
I popped out several times later to watch the comet until around
10 pm (my last trip outside as it was getting chilly). We both
noted and I certainly commented on this before David found out
about the military exercise that there was an unusual amount of
aerial activity in the skies during the period 7 - 10 pm.

We do get civil aircraft going into Manchester and low level
flights of military jets (mostly in daylight) that nearly knock
the chimney off our bungalow. But there was unquestionably an
excess amount of activity that night. There were slow moving
lights, probably helicopters, and faster moving aircraft. All
were to the north and east of me. In the two years since I have
never seen anything akin to the level of activity that night.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                             Re: Hypnotic Abuse

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:06:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:12:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse


>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:23:17 +0100

>>From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]
>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:26:28 +0100

>>No group in Northern England sanctions is as far as I can tell
>>and this has been in force for many years - which is perhaps
>>why we don't have as many 'alien abductions' over here...?

>Hi All,

>Regarding the above I wonder if this is the case for most
>Southern UFO Research groups? be interesting to find out.

>So here is the question: If you are a member of a Southern UFO
>Research team do you use the methods of hypnotic regression when
>dealing with alleged Alien abductees?

>Roy..


Hi,

I should clarify the position regarding hypnosis in the UK. It
was not uncommon between l978 (first use) and l988 and I was
involved in around 20 cases first hand. The decision to issue a
moritorium on its use followed restrictions that at first did
not in any sense ban its use. These were introduced in our l982
Code of Practice. The code was agreed between many UK groups
(certainly a few from the south - eg SCUFORI in Swindon). This
ensured that hypnosis could only be done by a medically
qualified practicioner to protect the witness. There was already
a trend of 'DIY' hypnosis by ufo investigators learnt by
watching doctors and employed to save money. This offered no
security to the witness, hence the code.

When we set up the code I tried to persuade as many groups as
possible to adopt it. I published it in my book 'Science and the
UFOs' in l985 (ironically the one that triggered the Streieber
abduction memory that has probably done more than any case to
boost the use of regression - maybe someone was trying to tell
me something with that one!) A large number of groups did adopt
this code - not just BUFORA, but MUFORA (now NARO). SCUFORI,
ASSAP, etc.

The code was useful but hypnosis continued. Then came the
debacle with an epileptic witness in a none BUFORA case that did
not follow the code. This, plus growing doubts over hyposis as
useful tesimony, led to the voluntarily decision for a five year
hiatus taken not by BUFORA council by autonomously by the team
of investigators that I then supervised. We made the inforned
choice ourselves after a proper and frank debate. We agreed to
abide by the majority vote (although i recall only one or two
voted no). The moritorium was a unilateral BUFORA plan. So far
as I know  even groups who supported the code did not adhere to
the ban. NARO - for instance - still uses hypnosis through a
fully qualified clinical psychologist (Dr Moyshe Kalman) and I
have sat in on some of that work post the moritarium myself - as
recently as l996 in fact. But I have not personally initiated
nor recommended to any witness that this process be adopted in
their case. Indeed I always advise against.

The BUFORA moratorium was renewed as a permanent ban after I
left as Director of Investigations. The belief in it has grown
since l988, not lessened, through awareness of false memory
syndrome, fantasy prone personality research, SRA and the like.
But I still think far less groups - even in the UK - have an
outright ban like BUFORAs as opposed to a sensible restrictive
and medically supervised approach.

Personally, I dont think hypnosis works, but I am not actually
opposed to its use provided the witness goes into it fully
informed and at their own conscious insistence (not through
agreeing with the subconscious desire of a UFO investigator to
try to come up with the next big case).  Also provided the code
is strictly adhered to and the regression is conducted by a
medical doctor who monitors the percipient for blood pressure,
etc , at all times. I think it is useful to have comparative
data between hypno and non hypno cases.

However, I feel that Britain is really taking a stand against
indiscriminate use of regression in some other parts of the
world - where, to generalise, young people can without any
breech of rules be regressed by non medically qualified people.
That, in my view, is wholly inappropriate for this subject and
if it needed BUFORA (as we did) to possibly over-react through
an outright ban and send a message out. It was worth doing. I am
merely sad, that in the usual muddle of BUFORA, nothing like
enough was ever done to make the world aware of our moritorium
or why we were taking these decisive steps. As a result it has
been an empty gesture to some extent. But I am very glad we made
it even so. Because we showed that what counts in a case is the
welfare of the witness above all else. Too often ufologists
selfishly judge the need for hypnosis on their desire to get a
good story out - even if they dont realise they are doing this.
Self regulation through a code of practice seems like a 'nanny
state' thing as people have told me. But it is better than a
free for all. It shows witnesses, science and the public that we
are thinking about our responsibilities so I remain 100%
committed to the code of practice and urge all those groups out
there (probably 90% of UK groups and 99% of world groups) who
have not signed up - or in many cases dont even know such a
thing exists - to consider taking the plunge. At the moment
BUFORA and a few others are a drop in the bucket. One day the
bucket will fall apart.

The experience of a certain ufologist and his (sorry - I mean
not his) abduction (sorry  - I mean not an abduction) on a US
road only emphasises the point. (I am being deliberately obscure
here as names are unimportant and I've been asked not to repeat
them). What matters is that this mans experience involved no
UFO, no aliens, just a possible missing time and the hypnosis
created a deeper memory (or in my view here most likely a
fantasy). Even the witness (sorry - not the witness) now seems
to feel the hypnosis did not uncover an abduction. He has the
background and can judge this tough issue. Most people pressured
(often subtly) into this process of revealing a hidden memory
cannot and are left with a legacy of confusion. Thats why those
who have been through it like this (non witness) or myself (see
my book Star Children) have an obligation to speak up for the
good of others. But its his choice and he has chosen no.

I have seen several cases where a non existent time lapse was
assumed, regression applied and a memory unravelled that cannot
be real because there was never a time lapse to start with.
There is the infamous UK case of a woman who video filmed a
weather balloon. NARO investigated immediately as that woman
called me within hours of her sighting via Jodrell Bank. Our
case investigation was objective and I think showed very clearly
what this woman saw that day. There was no hint of a time lapse.
Later another UFOlogist and she retraced the case, decided there
was now a time lapse and regressed her. Do we here see the start
of an abduction memory emerging via a case which in my view
cannot be an abduction since there was never a UFO present, just
a balloon? It is a tricky matter but a far from unimportant one.

To be sure these issues are complex and hardly simple choices.
But it is surely obvious that there are enough good reasons to
be wary of the value of hypnosis if not enough to do what BUFORA
has done and take a brave stand against 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: KAnder6444@aol.com
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:08:35 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:16:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>>From: Bluehare Dark Peak <bluehare24@hotmail.com>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:29:45 GMT

>>We believe that if ufologists are unable to
>>determine that a case is hoaxed or not then they should stick
>>to watching sci-fi. Stupidity within the subject of UFOlogy
>>has reached new peaks of intensity during the last two years.>>

>From: Kathleen Andersen <KAnder6444@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:27:18 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>Why must some of us have such closed minds to the existence of
>things unless we can touch it, see it, hear it or  smell it.

I'm answering myself here. I didn't want anyone to think I was
standing up for the Max Burns case. Actually I was in England
at the time the conversation was going on and didn't read email
for almost two weeks. I was commenting on ufology in general and
not that particular case which ended up in my "delete bin".

Yes, I get tired of "UFO report, UFO report, UFO report" here
and there. I become alarmed we are a society of Chicken Littles.
However there are a small few that defy explanation. For that
reason alone I still opt to spend my personal time researching
what its all about.


Kathleen Andersen
Seattle






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                      Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 99 13:01:47 PDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:27:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie


>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:04:13 -0400
>From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


>With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark" <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins And The Big Lie
>>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 09:20:40 PDT


Peter,

>>I find Peter's work at best of modest interest,
>>his often smirky, immensely self-pleased prose generally
>>unreadable.

>It's good to know that Jerome can change his mind, after years
>of maintaining how - though he might disagree with whatever I
>had to say - he always found it interesting. This shows he is
>open minded and tolerant and a very good egg.

You're a fine writer, Peter, and at times an immensely
self-pleased one who seems unable to imagine that the views of
honest, decent, sane persons who don't happen to agree with you
deserve anything but contempt and ridicule. As examples of the
latter, I found your FT pieces on Hopkins and Jacobs frankly
unreadable, which is why I missed your bogus charges about Budd
the first time around.

Reading your stuff, I have the feeling that the two Brookesmiths
are in conflict.  The Brookesmith I praise and enjoy is the good
writer who can be glimpsed struggling to emerge from behind what
looks to this reader (and to others with whom I've discussed
your work) like an outsized ego.  There are worse social crimes
than being egotistical or even egomaniacal, of course, but the
King Sneer act does get a tad tiresome, in my judgment.  But
hey, do what you gotta do, dude.

>But what, exactly, do Jerome's generously provided and variously
>repeated literary opinions have to do with anything I said last
>time around? Could it be that he does not want to gaze upon his
>own peccadilloes, to which I so unkindly drew attention? It is
>certainly true that he has been rather quiet about a major drift
>of what I wrote, which (lest we forget) concerned his ethical
>and moral self-contradictions.

Huh?  Whatever you say, guy.  And now ...

...  let's get back to what you're trying to avoid here:  You
accused Budd Hopkins, first, of dishonesty and, second, of
hypnotizing children in search of abduction testimony.  Both
charges are false.  When I pointed that out to you, you went
into full ad-hominem rant.  And of course you were wildly
indignant when I suggested that an apology might be in order.
(As I recall, Mao and Stalin suddenly entered the discussion.)
Jenny Randles, for example, did not consider the suggestion
outrageous.  It wasn't as if I were asking you, after all, to
retract your basic beliefs re the abduction phenomenon which,
right or wrong or both, you have every right to hold.  I just
thought, naively it appears, that you would have the ethical and
moral conviction that when grave and potentially damaging
accustations turn out to be unfounded, the accuser -- if he has
spoken from honest mistake, as I assume you have -- ought to say
he's sorry.

>>I am not willing to accept his tedious,
>>self-serving rationale -- laced, typically, with ad-hominem
>>remarks -- for not withdrawing and apologizing for his role in
>>circulating a bogus allegation.

>I am perfectly happy, if the facts so suggest, to apologize to
>Budd Hopkins. I see no reason to apologize to Jerome or anyone
>else who has no locus standi in the business.

Uh, did I ask you to apologize to _me_?  I don't think so. That
herring was notably red, my friend.  Since you have made the
false charges in more than one public forum, a public retraction
in at least one such forum would seem in order, don't you think?

>I really do not care what Jerome is willing to accept or not
>from me, or from anyone else. I do care a little more that he
>misrepresents me quite so transparently. Those who represent
>themselves as historians should be less economical with the
>truth. Turning the telescope the right way round will also show
>me in my true proportions.

Uh ... yeah ... right ... sure.  Now, back to the issue at hand:
Are you prepared to admit that you were wrong to accuse Hopkins
of (1) being dishonest (as opposed, say, to merely being wrong
from your point of view) and (2) hypnotizing children?  The
world -- or at least the list -- awaits your answer. A simple
yes or no will do.

Cheers,

Jerry Clark






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                             Re: Hypnotic Abuse

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:46:04 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:23:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse

>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 99 20:01:10 PDT

<snip>

>I don't find these to be particularly compelling examples.  Did
>you ever meet the late Edith Fiore?  She was a serious nut case
>and in no sense a ufologist (not, of course, that -- God help us
>-- one _can't_ be a nut case and a ufologist).  She had
>wide-ranging New Age views and a long history as a mystical
>seeker, including involvement with a sex-and-saucer cult run by
>the notorious contactee/charlatan Dick Miller. Her book on
>abductions was laughable, as were her books on satanic
>possession and reincarnation.  I once heard her relate -- with a
>straight face -- that in a previous life one of her patients had
>been an alien who died at Roswell.

<snip>

>>Congratulations on the Ph.D., by the way.  Use it well.

>Jerry Clark

Dear Jerry, I take serious exception to your statement above,
which I repeat ...

" ... God help us -- one _can't_ be a nut case and a ufologist ... "

I resent that remark, as I am a perfect example that one _can_
be a _perfect_ nut case and still be a UFOologist.  We must
be tolerant of each other, Jerry.  Otherwise, people are going
to talk about us.

Gesundt






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                  Paradigm Research Group Update - 6/22/99

From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:42:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:55:21 -0400
Subject: Paradigm Research Group Update - 6/22/99

P  R  G
Paradigm Research Group

PRG UPDATE:   June 22, 1999

General Overview

The presidential impeachment process and accompanying scandal
have exited stage right, and now the NATO action in Yugoslavia
is exiting stage left.  The President and presidency will enjoy
a measure of revitalization.  The Congress will soon fully focus
on business as usual.  Dozens of hours of monthly political
media coverage will become available to other issues.

The sitting President has shown more publicly disclosed interest
in the UFO issue than any other in this century.  He has alluded
to the subject in public discourse, permitted members of his
advisory staff to be briefed, taken briefings himself, and
directed an associate attorney general to make direct inquiries.
His CIA director took a 3-hour briefing on the UFO issue and
government cover-up.

It is ten months to the start of the 2000 presidential and
congressional primaries. Introduction of the fundamental facts
surrounding the extraterrestrial presence via congressional
hearings can still take place in time to make them part of the
debates selecting the first public officials to serve in the
21st century.  This represents a window of opportunity for those
elements within the government favoring basic formal disclosure.

These individuals are most certainly aware of the public and
private statements by former government employees.  They
understand the damage being done to the public trust and the
social contract as the withholding of this information continues
while the unclosable breach in the cover-up grows.

But opposition within the government to formal disclosure exists
as well.  Without focused pressure from the public, this
opportunity could pass unrequited.

PRG's Immediate Agenda

The primary focus remains the initiation of potent investigative
journalism targeting the ongoing leakage from the standing
government cover-up and the efforts to obtain open Congressional
hearings.  Such reportage could come from any of a half dozen
directions at this time.

Further, the return to relative normalcy within the nation's
capitol reopens the door for direct engagement of House and
Senate members.  This will begin immediately after the 1999
MUFON International Symposium being held in Arlington, VA, just
across the river from Washington, on July 2,3,4.

Note:  the 1999 event will be an excellent conference and there
is still time to make reservations.  More information is at [
http://dc.jones.com/~lauraufo/symposium99.htm">http://dc.j
ones.com/~laur aufo/symposium99.htm ].  PRG is doing
everything it can to assist Susan Swiatek of MUFON in making the
1999 Symposium as successful as possible.   I intend to be at
the conference for the entire schedule. Anyone wanting to get
together, please email
ParadigmRG@aol.com">ParadigmRG@aol.com.

Congressional members are naturally more attuned to respond to
their constituents.  Any assistance in arranging meetings with a
member or appropriate aide is most helpful.  A sample letter one
might use to set up such a meeting is appended for your
convenience.  Please convey this wording to any one who might be
in a position to approach their representatives in this context.
___________________________________

Dear Representative/Senator  ________:

As a result of public statements by Col. Philip Corso, Apollo
astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper
and others, I am greatly concerned that elements of some
government agencies are not being properly forthright with the
American people regarding the alleged presence of
extraterrestrial life forms in our world, now.

I am also aware of a national effort to initiate open
Congressional hearings to take testimony from many other
government witnesses who have personal experience with events
and evidence potentially confirming so called UFOs as space
craft and the presence of non-human life forms.   These efforts
include a national petition and state ballot initiative
targeting 16 state elections.

Stephen Bassett of the Paradigm Research Group is a consultant
and lobbyist registered to represent a number of organizations
regarding this issue as well as the issue itself.   He is
capable of speaking to the specifics regarding the points
raised.

I strongly encourage you to set up a meeting between your office
and Mr. Bassett so you may be properly informed as to the merits
of holding such hearings.  His contact information is as
follows:  Phone: 301-564-1820, Fax:  301-564-4066, Email:
ParadigmRG@aol.com">ParadigmRG@aol.com.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
_________________________________________

The effort to directly approach legislative members is intended
to tie in with�.

The UFO State Ballot Initiative

Early in the year, Robert Bletchman, MUFON Director of Public
Relations, considered the implications of using the power
available in some states of legal referendums.  Bob drafted a
proposed "UFO Ballot Initiative," and contacted Larry Bryant,
MUFON Director of Governmental Affairs, to assist him in
convincing national MUFON to endorse the project.

There are 16 states that recognize the direct initiative
process, whereby constitutional amendments or statutes proposed
by the people are directly placed on the election ballot and
then submitted to the people for their approval or rejection.
(This is the Direct Initiative, where the state legislature has
no role in the process.  An additional seven states permit
indirect initiatives in which the passed proposition is
presented to the legislature for final vote.)

The following are direct initiative states: Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.  To place a Direct Initiative on the
ballot requires a signed petition by the voters within the
state.  The number of signatures varies by state and is usually
a small percentage of the previous voter turnout.  Additional
information can be obtained at [
http://www.ufocity.com">http://www.ufocity.com].

The proposed language of the "Ballot Initiative to End Official
Secrecy on UFO Reality" is as follows:
____________________________

We the voting citizens of the state of Arizona [and, eventually,
of other similarly empowered states] do hereby direct this
state's governor to issue, forthwith in the customary manner, an
OFFICIAL PROCLAMATION, the wording of which shall be:

"It is hereby proclaimed that the year 2000 be observed as the
year of UFO awareness.  Because of the federal government's
failure to be officially forthcoming about Unidentified Flying
Objects, the public remains ill informed and confused on a
matter of potentially great consequence.

We therefore urge the U.S. Congress to expeditiously convene
open, comprehensive hearings in which governmental personnel
(military, civilian-contract, and agency employees -- active and
retired) are permitted to present sworn testimony regarding
their personal knowledge of any UFO-related evidence, to be
given under immunity by waiver of any applicable security oath
or agreement of nondisclosure.  This proclamation acknowledges
the following facts:

(1)     The weight of the cumulative evidence -- e.g., eyewitness,
electronic-detection, photographic, documentary - overwhelmingly
supports the conclusion of a majority of Americans that some of
the reported UFOs represent somebody else's spacecraft;

(2)     The federal government's handling of the UFO issue has
contributed to the public cynicism toward and general mistrust
of government -- a development injurious to our republic;

(3)     This initial year of the third millennium affords us a
renewed opportunity to explore, assess, and convey every facet
of UFO reality." _____________________________________

It should be noted that at the heart of the USBI is wording
associated with the national 'Open Congressional Hearing for
Modern UFO Evidence' petition.  More information on this is
located at: [
http://www.paradigmclock.com/therighttopetition.html#Petit
ion">http://ww
w.paradigmclock.com/therighttopetition.html#Petition ]

The ballot initiative signature collection will require MUFON
members within each state to coordinate the work necessary to
obtain the signatures and deal with the governor's
representatives.  The drive would be publicized in the MUFON UFO
Journal, with press releases prepared by Robert H. Bletchman for
the states involved and additional support from MUFON
headquarters.

There is the possibility the ballot initiative process has the
power to transform MUFON into a powerful representative of the
public's interest in the political/social implications of the
UFO/ET/Government connection.   It could add thousands of
members and substantial resources should MUFON choose to use the
initiative process as a tool for expansion.  All of this will be
a major topic of discussion at the 1999 MUFON National
Symposium, and is one more reason to attend.

The UFO State Ballot Initiative (USBI) should attract media
attention later this year, which could assist the legal work
being conducted by�.

CAUS (Citizens Against UFO Secrecy)

Peter Gersten, an attorney and co-founder of CAUS, is pursuing:

1)  an FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Defense regarding
information about the triangular shaped UFOs. The preliminary
pretrial conference scheduled for June 14th was canceled by the
Court.  The US Attorneys Office is preparing a Motion for
Summary Judgment (to dismiss) the lawsuit based upon the fact
that the DoD conducted a "reasonable" search and did not find
any information.  CAUS will be filing a Motion for Limited
Discovery, asking the Court to allow it to submit a list of 40
interrogatories (questions) to be submitted to the DoD.

2)  an FOIA lawsuit against the FBI; CIA & Department of Defense
regarding information about the 'alien abduction phenomenon.'
The lawsuit planned for this summer, assuming the necessary
affidavits have been received.  All three agencies have reported
a finding of "no records."

3)  a non-FOIA lawsuit against the US Government and State of
Arizona which will be based upon the provision of Article IV;
Sec IV of the US Constitution which states that the federal
government shall (must) protect the states against invasion.
CAUS will argue that the alien abduction phenomenon as well as
certain aspects of the UFO phenomenon constitute an invasion
under this provision.  CAUS will be asking a federal judge to
direct the federal government to protect the citizens of Arizona
from this invasion...or at least conduct a hearing into its
nature, origin and identity.

In support of this lawsuit, CAUS is seeking affidavits regarding
black triangle sightings and the reported abduction phenomenon.
Full information and the affidavit form and instructions are on
the CAUS website:

http://www.caus.org

CAUS' need for affidavits will be helped along by the��..

World Wide Watch

The concept for the World Wide Watch was launched by Diana
Botsford and the MSN UFO Community website and is scheduled for
June 26th (Saturday), 1999.  The start time is 8pm - YOUR local
time and the Watch ends at 11pm, Hawaii, USA time or 4 am EST
(Sunday)

This is a global sighting expedition in which organizations and
individuals will join in searching the skies for unusual
phenomena.  The MSN UFO Community's chat room will be kept open
for a 24-hour period so regional coordinators can receive
sightings reports from any and all observers. This information
will be made instantly available on a public database created
solely for this event.

Organizations involved include:  Skywatch International, MUFON,
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, the World Wide UFO Reporting
Center, CSETI, The Australian UFO Research Network & Affiliates,
and La Sociedad de
Investigaciones Biofsicas.

Much more information can be seen at:

http://communities.msn.com/ufo/www.asp

Seeing a number of organizations working together prompts a
commentary on���..

Financial Support

Don't wait for the largess of philanthropists.  Interest level
in UFO/ET phenomena is at an all time high and now extends into
the tens of millions in the US alone.  For about $300 per year,
less than a fitness club membership, it is possible to join, or
contribute to at a commensurate level, the most prominent
research/activist organizations in the field and subscribe to
the primary publications.   Interested citizens, rather than
joining one group to feel "connected" to the issue, need to see
their support of all primary organizations as their family
investment in the single most important event/transition in
human history.  Such an opportunity will not come again and is
possible solely by the chance timing of their birth.   They must
decide now whether they wish to play an active, tangible role in
this extraordinary occurrence or simply be a spectator -
treating this paradigm change as if it were just another
television special for their entertainment.

If 10,000 citizens choose to "hit for the cycle" and cover the
field, they would immediately pump $3,000,000 into the science
and politics of UFO/ET phenomena/disclosure - 100,000 put
$30,000,000 into the work.   And no one has spent more than
their annual cable TV bill.

The financial power to ensure full citizen participation in what
heretofore has been dominated by military/intelligence
components of the state has always been in our hands.  All that
is required is an act of will.   A basket of organizations to
join/support and recommend to your associates might include:

CAUS: Citizens Against UFO Secrecy www.caus.org/support.htm
$20 (contribution)

CNI News: www.cninews.com/CNI_Subscribe.html
$24 (subscription)

CSETI: Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence
$40 (membership)
www.cseti.org/member/morder.htm

CUFOS: Center for UFO Studies
www.cufos.org/assoc1.html">www.cufos.org/assoc1.html
$25 (membership)

EM: Enterprise Mission
www.enterprisemission.com">www.enterprisemission.com
$20 (contribution)

FUFOR:  Fund for UFO Research www.fufor.org">www.fufor.org]
$20 (contribution)

MUFON:Mutual UFO Network
www.mufon.com/about/member.nclk"
$30 (membership)

NUFORC: National UFO Reporting Center
$20 (purchase)

www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr/Video.html

ORTK: Operation Right to Know www.ortk.org/member.html
$15 (membership)

PEER: Program for Extraordinary Experience Research
$30 (contribution)
www.peer-mack.org/orderform.html

SI: Skywatch International
$25 (membership)
www.itlnet.net/web/skywatch/application.html

UFO Magazine www.ufocity.com/ufomag/subscribe.html
$30 (subscription)

$299


It is not difficult to lose touch with what is at stake with the
issues these organizations and people are attempting to resolve
in the interest of the nation and its citizens.   There have
been reminders��

Health and Morbidity Watch

The health and morbidity of researcher/activists continues to be
monitored at the following page on the Paradigm Clock website [

www.paradigmclock.com/In_Memoriam-Healthwatch.html">www.pa
radigmclock.co m/In_Memoriam-Healthwatch.html ].

During the past twelve months, five individuals who are
prominent and involved on the cutting edge of either research,
activism or public awareness on the UFO/ET issue have suffered
heart conditions.   Three are recovering from heart attacks -
Richard Hoagland (age 54), Dr. Roger Leir (64) and Bud Hopkins
(67); one died from a heart attack - Col. Philip Corso (83); and
one is recovering from a bout of ventricular tachycardia - Keith
Rowland (40+).

In the past three years five more individuals, who have or had
also been on the cutting edge of research, activism or public
awareness, were struck with cancer.  Four died from these
cancers - Kathy Keeton (58), Steven Schiff (51), Shari Adamiak
(40+) and Karla Turner (60+); and one survived two bouts of
malignant melanoma - Dr. Steven Greer (43).

There have been other deaths, including Betty Cash (69), but by
far the most troubling for this author was that of the
Congressman from New Mexico, the Honorable Steven Schiff.  He
was the first member of the House or Senate since 1968 to make
the UFO/ET question a proper matter of legislative inquiry.  He
was not satisfied with the responses he received regarding
Roswell related records and said so on television programs
numerous times.   He was struck with an unusual and powerful
squamous cancer of the ear, which resisted all treatment and
went into his brain.  It is quite unlikely that anyone receiving
this update has ever known anyone who has died from such a
cancer.

What must we learn from this growing health/morbidity list?

1.  The individuals who have elected to address this subject are
not exactly having their lives extended.

2.  The work is enormously difficult and requires tremendous
sacrifices.

3.  The personal and financial stresses placed on
researchers/activists is great enough without being enhanced by
infighting, petty bickering, personal grudges, libel, slander,
side taking, back stabbing, and purely self serving agendas.

4.  Aside from any bait tossing government operatives and agent
provocateurs, the honest people in the field have much more in
common than not.  Respect and understanding of other's
contributions and theories coupled with tolerance and
forgiveness of other's faults and mistakes will ultimately serve
everyone's interests in the greatest measure.

5.  These illnesses on first glance seem to challenge actuarial
expectations. Until we know more, it is essential that all of us
pay close attention to this matter and publicize the specifics
when possible.  In that regard please consider sending any new
information regarding the health of individuals within the field
to ParadigmRG@aol.com">ParadigmRG@aol.com.

Whatever negatives one may perceive, there is much to admire in
those who have taken on the responsibility their special
knowledge has forced upon them.  As it happens, there is one
quality in particular possessed by those whom I admire most -
fearlessness.   I deal with politicians, staff and media who are
afraid for their job, their income, their reputation, and their
image.  They're afraid of ridicule, their boss, their own
government and their peers.

Sarah McClendon, Richard Hoagland, Larry Bryant, Peter Gersten,
Steven Greer, Art Bell, Jim Marrs, Roger Leir, Derrel Sims,
Robert Dean, Bud Hopkins, Steven Schiff, Edgar Mitchell and
others are people I have found be afraid of no idea, no person
and no government.  They intend to pursue the truth as best they
can, no matter what the cost.  The message that is conveyed
transcends being right on every aspect of every proposed theory
or interpretation.    That message is this:  until the citizens
of this country are in full partnership with their own
government on matters of policy and understanding regarding the
extraterrestrial presence - they will not back off - ever.

The concept of common interest brings to mind another point��

The Power of an in situ Collective

Exceptional as the Internet is as a tool for empowering the
individual, it has the drawback of creating a virtual collective
of separated, and to some degree, isolated people.   This
citizen movement has largely been a home office,
one-person-one-computer enterprise with little division of
labor.  Everyone works hard and everyone is overwhelmed.  This
state of affairs is, of course, mostly a matter of money.

There is a pressing need for greater coalitioning - for
consolidation and sharing of resources.   In this regard,
benefactors can play a major role.   A hundred proposals could
be written tomorrow.  I can only speak to my area of interest.

It would cost about $125,000 a year to operate a formal, officed
lobbying effort targeting the government on its handling of the
UFO/ET phenomena issue.  This would include a chief lobbyist,
two paid staff, a few volunteers, modest rent and the
appropriate computer and communications equipment - $125,000.
Such a modest sum to address the social/political implications
(the science needs $millions).

Perhaps someone of means, capable of understanding just what is
at stake in all this, would consider an opportunity to
participate in the greatest event in human history and possibly
save our constitutional republic in the bargain, one worth
taking.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                            Firmage's ISSO Update

From: Joe Firmage Automessenger <>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:54:56 -0400
Subject: Firmage's ISSO Update


Hello,

I am sending you this update with four items of note:

First, there is an excellent source of information I would like
to bring to your attention: The Journal of Scientific
Exploration (JSE), published by the Society for Scientific
Exploration (SSE). Neither JSE nor SEE are connected with ISSO,
but I believe that this journal is such an excellent and unique
source of research in frontier areas of science (including the
UFO phenomenon) that I consider it important to spread the word
about this publication.

The official description in the Allen Press Buyer's Guide to
Scientific, Medical and Scholarly Journals states: JSE publishes
refereed research articles aimed at scientific advance and the
expansion of human knowledge in areas falling outside the
established scientific disciplines. It provides an unbiased
professional forum for discussion and debate of anomalous
phenomena. Research articles are selected for publication on the
basis of scholarship, as determined by peer review, and can be
either supportive, critical or neutral.

To the best of my knowledge the journal is the only source of
information, discussion and commentary on topics covering the
entire spectrum of anomalous phenomena and exceptional human
abilities in an unbiased and rational manner. The goal of JSE is
neither to advocate the reality of anomalous phenomena, nor to
debunk.

I urge you to visit their website at http://www.jse.com for
further information and, if you wish, to subscribe to this
Journal.

Second, posted to the following URL is a first cut at a "New
Millennium Library" -- a subset of seminal resources I would
strongly advise you to study, to educate yourself on subjects
which an increasing number of leading futurists believe will
drive humanity's future. If you have the courage to consider
seriously the hypothesis that I and many other thinkers now take
quite seriously, then carefully review each of the following
references in sequence...

    http://www.TheWordIsTruth.org/know.htm

You may see the 21st Century in a completely new perspective
once through these books and sites. Check back at this link
before the end of the year to see a more comprehensive list of
recommendations.

Third, posted to the following URL you'll find a few remarks on
a recent article reviewing my writings.

    http://www.TheWordIsTruth.org/redherring.htm

Finally, due to the volume of incoming information and the pace
of recent activities, I have shifted the launch of the
International Space Sciences Organization to July, 1999. I'll
send out a notice just before launch, to let you know the
details. Sorry for the delay. Bookmark ISSO's forthcoming
website at www.isso.org.


Very best,

J O S E P H   F I R M A G E
__________________________________________

Chairman, Int'l Space Sciences Organization

If you would prefer to be removed from this mailing list, follow the link
below: http://www.TheWordIsTruth.org/remove.cfm





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                 Cattle Mutilation in Chino Valley, Arizona

From: Desiree Holloway <snake@mwaz.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:33:30 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:03:31 -0400
Subject: Cattle Mutilation in Chino Valley, Arizona


I am writing in reference to a recently reported cattle
mutilation which took place at the Deep Well Ranch in Chino
Valley, Arizona between Thursday, June 3 and Saturday, June 5.
The local newspaper stated, "they found the animal, which was
nursing a calf this Spring, with its nose, the front half of its
tongue and its bottom lip cleanly cut away. The person or
persons committing the gruesome act also removed the
reproductive organ and rectum from the animal's hind quarters."

There are no further details at this time, but perhaps it is
worth investigating,. Also, there have been numerous flights of
Apache helicopters over Chino Valley, especially after this
reported episode. One particular flight was a group of
approximately seven helicopters, flying at extremely low
altitude, so low in fact that the rocks trembled on the ground
and the pilots were clearly visible to the naked eye.

Any response to my letter would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Desiree Holloway
P.O. Box 2062
Chino Valley, AZ  86323
snake@mwaz.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 05:42:02 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:09:14 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'



>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:37:25 -0700
>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>From: Phillip S Duke <drpduke@juno.com>

>The evidence that HIV/AIDSs are purposeful ET alien creations is
>all laid out in my book. Get the book and read it and then if
>you want criticize. But please don't criticize what you don't
>know about and don't understand. Thank you.


Mr. Duke,

Please present some of this evidence to this list.

Thank you.


            __________________________________________
           /    Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes    \
                      Henny van der Pluijm
                              hvdp@worldonline.nl

                       Technology Pages
                http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp
             \______________________________________/






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                       Alien Life May Be Hard To Find

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 05:50:03
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:11:26 -0400
Subject: Alien Life May Be Hard To Find


Source: New Scientist via EurekAlert!,

http://www.eurekalert.org:80/releases/ns-its062399.html

Stig

***

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 23 JUNE 1999 AT 14:00:00 ET US

Contact: Claire Bowles
claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk
44-171-331-2751

US Contact: New Scientist Washington office
newscidc@idt.net
202-452-1178

*New Scientist

If the Sun is exceptional, alien life may be hard to find

What a star!

**

Don't believe everything you read in books-our Sun is no ordinary star. And
its very uniqueness has implications for SETI, the search for
extraterrestrial life, claims Guillermo Gonzalez of the University of
Washington in Seattle: "Unless astronomers narrow down their search to
stars as exceptional as the Sun, they are wasting much of their time."

The Sun is a single star whereas most stars are in multiple systems. But
that apart, textbooks say the Sun is pretty average. However, after
trawling through the data on the Sun, Gonzalez has found many
idiosyncrasies. It is among the most massive 10 per cent of stars in its
neighbourhood. It also has 50 per cent more heavy elements than other stars
of its age and type, and about a third of the variation in brightness.

The most unusual aspects of the Sun concern its orbit around the centre of
the Galaxy, says Gonzalez. Its orbit is significantly less elliptical than
that of other stars of its age and type, and hardly inclined at all to the
Galactic plane. What's more, the Sun is orbiting very close to the
"corotation radius" for the Galaxy-the place at which the angular speed of
the spiral pattern matches that of the stars.

Gonzalez argues that these exceptional characteristics made it possible for
intelligent life to emerge on Earth. He points out that stable planetary
orbits such as the Earth's are much more likely around single stars like
the Sun. For a massive star with inhabitable planets that are relatively
far away, stellar flare-ups would be little threat to the planets. Heavy
elements are essential to make planets like Earth, and a star with a stable
light output is essential for life.

As for the orbit of the Sun, its circularity prevents it plunging into the
inner Galaxy where life-threatening supernovae are more common. And its
small inclination to the Galactic plane prevents abrupt crossings of the
plane that would stir up the Sun's Oort Cloud and bombard the Earth with
comets. By being near the Galaxy's corotation radius, the Sun avoids
crossing the spiral arms too often, an event that would expose it to
supernovae, which are more common there.

Because life-bearing stars have to be close to the corotation radius, that
rules out more than 95 per cent of stars in the Galaxy in one fell swoop.
"There are fewer stars suitable for intelligent life than people realise,"
says Gonzalez, who has submitted his findings to Astronomy & Geophysics.
"I'm amazed at how little thought the SETI people put into selecting their
stars."

Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, disagrees.
"Our targets are all very close to the Sun. They share our Galactic
neighbourhood and motions. If the Sun is the most suitable type of star to
be scrutinised, then we are, indeed, looking in all the best places."

"Most astronomers disagree with Gonzalez," adds SETI researcher Dan
Werthimer of the University of California at Berkeley. "Our Sun is pretty
average. In any case, you don't need a star exactly like our Sun for life."

###

PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS ITEM








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 05:34:21 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:05:24 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:37:25 -0700
>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>From: Phillip S Duke <drpduke@juno.com>

<snipped a lot before and after this paragraph>

>You never commented on my factual statements concerning cattle
>mutilation sites and human abduction examination sites
>corresponding with HIV body transmission sites. Nor on the
>abductee whose HIV test changed with his implant removal. How do
>you explain these facts? FACTS. Not funny (to you) criticisms
>without basis. But _facts_.


Mr. Duke,


Can you give additional information about this case in order
for others to verify whether this has taken place?
Thank you.

            __________________________________________
           /    Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes    \
                      Henny van der Pluijm
                             hvdp@worldonline.nl

                       Technology Pages
                http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp
             \______________________________________/






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: judithdale <judithdale@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:46:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:59:12 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:05:14 -0400
>From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>With the compliments of the Duke of mendoza:

Thanks, Peter, for your input and information. More of my
thoughts below:

>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:39:46 -0700
>>From: Judith Dale <judithdale@earthlink.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

>>Yes, well, the CDC and WHO would like us to believe that the
>>origin of HIV lies in the Green Monkey. However, there is also
>>the theory that HIV was grown in the biological warfare labs,
>>which interestingly are often in the same companies that
>>produce vaccines.

>Here are the antidotes to this kind of factoid:

>In the USA and Europe in the 1980s and '90s there were
>suspicions that HIV had reached the human population through
>vaccines, in particular a batch of live polio vaccine that was
>created using African green monkey cells. This was used in
>Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi between 1957 and 1960. An American
>scientific panel examined the evidence in 1992-3, and concluded
>the vaccines were free of HIV. A major problem with the
>'contaminated vaccine' theory was that the HIV-1 and SIV viruses
>are genetically so far apart that it was virtually impossible
>for the SIV to have mutated into HIV-1 in such a short timespan.
>It was suggested too that viruses in smallpox vaccine grown on
>cow cells had reacted with bovine leukemia viruses to produce
>HIV, but this theory too collapsed when it was shown that the
>DNA of the two microorganisms were incapable of combining.
>Astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe declared
>their conviction that the AIDS virus came from outer space. The
>two British scientists have long maintained that many
>epidemic-inducing microbes arrive on meteorites, asteroids and
>minor comets entering the Earth's atmosphere. The distinguished
>astronomers have consistently ignored biologists' objections
>that the microbes would be wiped out by a combination of
>ultra-violet light in outer space and the heat generated when
>the space debris enters the atmosphere.

<snip>

Hadn't heard of the particular 'theories' you mention above,
before. Curious, to say the least. I am aware of the other
'theories' you detailed.  Given the horror of HIV infection's
toll on the body's immune system, brain cells, etc., and the
fact that the virus seems to every day reveal some new bizarre
twist in it's ability to hide, linger,  all the while reeking
havoc, it is no wonder that a great mythology would spring up
around it. Including that its origins were 'Alien' or off earth.
Ofcourse, the bottom line remains how do we treat the infection
and how do we not only increase and improve survival once a
person is infected, but can we eradicate it?

I first became aware of the HIV created in biowarfare labs
theory in 1990, whilst working to establish an HIV/AIDS support
system in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Shortly after
attending an intensive training for medical people about
HIV/AIDS, I had the opportunity to watch a video made by a
physician in L.A. (his name is lost in my memory banks, now).
This physician raised the question of the origin of the virus,
and mentioned the possibility of contaminated Hepatitis B
vaccines. Later I talked about this video with some of the other
nurses I was working with. One of them told me that she had
recently received a letter from the Navy, telling her that she
may have been exposed to HIV via the Hepatitis B vaccine series
she had received when she was in active duty.  The letter went
on to assure her that any negative health impact and care
required as the result of HIV infection, would be paid for by
the Navy. She did get tested and had a series of negative HIV
antibody results.

That simple bit of evidence has left me wondering for years
about the true origin of HIV. We may never know. However, in my
professional work with those that are infected with HIV, and in
my contact with close friends who were infected, I've come to
see that the true origins of the virus, become rather irrelevant
in the face of living with HIV.

In some ways, the mythology that has grown to surround HIV/AIDS,
reminds me of the mythology that has grown around UFO's and
ET's. It seems that as humans, when faced with something so
hugely beyond our ability to easily understand and grasp, we
struggle to make sense of what is going on. I find us to be very
creative in the explanations we come up with. Sadly, some
explanations are more far fetched than what it is they have been
created to explain.

Blessings,

Judith






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

               Re: New Images Placed On RPIT Site - "The Bird"

From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:57:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:06:46 -0400
Subject: Re: New Images Placed On RPIT Site - "The Bird"



>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: New Images Placed On RPIT Site - "The Bird"
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:15:10 +0200

>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>>Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 12:11:03 -0800
>>Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 10:58:22 -0500
>>Subject: New Images Placed On RPIT Site

>>All on UpDates,

>>I've today place 2 new images on my web site that address more
>>of the features in the "weather balloon" debris photographed on
>>July 8th 1947 in Gen Ramey's office at Fort Worth Tx.

><snip>

>Neil, Bob, Josh, RPIT members & List,

>I went back to some of the old mails and URLs  dealing with the
>Ramey photos, and I was trying to find the same as RPIT had
>found.

>Referring to the following URL:

>http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/ftw-pics/new-1/rmyem1x.gif

>I can easily pick out the "2" like symbol, and I can see it is
>_not a random mark_, but, the other observations I can hardly
>figure out at all.

>Instead, I can see some darker outlines of some kind of
>"decorations" _close_ to the "2" symbol, and painted on the
>material. They are located _between_ the two white circles A and
>D, and the "2" symbol -- with the raised, "3-D" edges -- even
>seems to form a part of these decorations.

>Further, _my interpretation_ is that I seem to see outlines of
>_a bird's head_, with the "beak" almost touching the "D", and I
>see the bird's black eye (just follow the black line to the
>left), and the outlines of the rest of the head as well. Above
>the head (at the lower part within the "A circle") I can see
>some decorations resembling "a bunch of flowers" ("tulips", or
>even "slim" mushrooms?), or this might even be the tail feathers
>of the bird, with the bird's head bent 90 degrees (relative to
>the "feathers"). (The rest of "the bird's" body is disappeared
>in white.....)

>The more I concentrate on this, the more it looks like a bird!

>(Many birds! In fact, I can see birds everywhere - especially
>when I concentrate on the dark spots as eyes!)


Asgeir,

You make a very valid point here, if you look hard enough at
these pictures you can see "almost" anything in them!

But what I have tried to highlight and bring to attention on my
website are the many "symbols" which seem to be found duplicted
in a number of areas within the images, I think this reduces the
"ink blot/butterfly" effect odds somewhat.

As I've said in the past though I do think some of this stuff is
"decoration", here are a couple of examples:

http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/ftw-pics/new-1/rppngano.gif
http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/ftw-pics/new-1/rbnsym.gif

Commentary on these images can be found in:

http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/ftw-pics/new-1/fab-idx.htm

Many thanks for your interest in the project I hope you continue
to stick with us.

Neil.


--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
UK.                \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/
G8KOQ


             E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk

Roswell and Alien Autopsy Archive->  http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/
Dave Willetts Home Page->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/dave_willetts/
Mike Sterling Home Page->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/mike-s/
Tim Morgan Home Page   ->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/tim-m/

*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                              Re: RIPT & MJ-12

From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:04:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:13:51 -0400
Subject: Re: RIPT & MJ-12


>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:18:34 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: RIPT & MJ-12

>Re: RIPT & MJ-12


Hi Rodger,
Some excellent points to chew over here,


>>From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:37:14 +0100
>>Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:55:07 -0400
>>Subject: Re: RIPT & MJ-12

>Previously, Neil had offered:

>>The paper is also clearly not a teletype message, as Kevin
>>points out teletype machines used (and still do) continuous roll
>>paper which is just torn away as the message is complete, this
>>makes a large "letter heading" on the paper impossible if it
>>were teletype output.

> <snip>

>>And the document seems to mention:

>>"4"  "VICTIMS"  "WRECK" "CONVAY" "CRASHES" "MIDDAY" "STORY ADV"
>>and might I also offer "EVEN PUT THEORY WEATATN BALLOONS"

>Hi, Neil.

>Some things I thought I'd throw into the mix.

>First, when I was a kid, there was an old (or I suppose new, at
>that time) teletype machine at the TV station where my father
>worked. The type it put out was identical to that of an old
>Remington typerwriter my parents still have. Therefore, I'm not
>sure that based on type, alone, could someone determine whether
>the memo in question originated from a teletype machine though
>some teletypes used upper case only.

The conclusion about the message not being teletype output
wasn't arrived at by the "style" of format of the typeface etc
but by the fact that on what can be "just" seen at the very top
of the paper. Just visible is what appears to be the impression
of a heading in larger print and possibly underlined, the last
letter(s) possibly being a capitol "L". Unless this was a large
"rubber stamped" impression we must assume it was preprinted on
the sheet, there is also the Seal/Monogram just visible in the
top left corner of the message sheet both these items taken
together seem to point to the paper being printed stationery,
and as tyletype machines used continuous roll paper feed, sheet
headings were impossible, and teletype machines had a fixed font
size too.

>Second, I remember the news guys bitching and moaning about how
>unreliable the teletype was. Things were always coming in
>spelled incorrectly due to machine error (as well as error on
>the part of the original "typist", I'm sure).

Teletype machine in those days were pure mechine technology the
only 2 electrical components were the drive motor and
send/receive electromagnet keyer, wonderful pieces of noisy cogs
and gears, I have a Creed 7b machine (1960's vintage) in the
garage that I used to use receiving teletype off HF radio in the
days before computers took over the job. The big problem with
them was keeping the damb things in sync, most had a governed
motor with some form of "stobe" markings so that using the local
mains electric AC light 50hz (uk) 60hz (us) the machine could be
speed regulated to a resonable accuracy, if you didn't do this
on a regular basis and the machine drifted off speed, then you
got into errors in a big way, but they could cope with low grade
lines quite well.

>Third, the feed on the machine was not always on the mark, which
>resulted in uneven lines of type more often than not. As we've
>become used to laser printers and ink jet printers, it's good to
>remember that some of the old equipment wasn't always up to
>snuff, even when hitting on all cylinders! (hell, my ink jet
>printer still screws up from time to time)

A lot depended of the type of print head used, in the case of my
Creed it used a rotating drum print head and gave rock solid
lines with very little verticle jitter, some used a "basket" as
per a std typewriter these too would give a resonable line of
print, later designs used a variation of the "golfball", now
those did give very "variable" results if the timings were out
on selector cams.

It must be remembered that the teletype (in those days) didn't
use a full set of typewriter characters. The code used to
transmit telex was limited to 5 data bits, a maximum of 32
codes, 5 of these were command codes to select two alternate
banks of characters plus some of the codes were non printable
command codes ie "Carr return" "Line feed". Upper and lower
cases were not used, you either had a fixed upper case OR lower
A-Z, all those I've seen used upper case, you also had the
numbers 0-9 and a limited set of symbols and that was it!. It
wasn't until the advent of the computer that extended telex
codes or normal ASCII and higher speeds (above 110/300 baud)
became the norm, but back in 1947 they would have been stuck
with the few speeds used in the US 45.5, 54 , 60 baud and the
old 5 bit code.

This was the std code used:
                               w                 b          �  cmds
                               r       �         e          �s r   l f
Figs.    3 - 7 ( 5 9 . = , 8 ' u 8 4 ) $ : 6 % ? l / 2 0 @ 1�p t l t i
Lett.    E A U K T O M V N I S D Z R L H C Y F B J X W P G Q�c n f r g

      1  x x x x             x x x         x x x x x x     x       x x
B     2    x x x       x   x       x x   x       x   x x x x     x x x
i spkt   o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
t     3      x x     x x x x x         x x x x     x   x   x x     x
s     4        x   x x x x     x   x     x   x x x x     x     x   x x
      5          x x x x         x   x x   x   x   x x x x x       x x

  Notes...   wru = who are you? get the auto id transmitter to send
                   the id of the machine you'r connected to.

             � $ = money symbol for locality.
             bel = Just ring my bell!.
             spc = Space character.
             rtn = Carriage return character.
             lf  = Line feed character.
             ltr = Shift to using letter set of characters.
             fig = Shift to using figure set of characters.

If you were a real "guru" using the chart above you could learn
to "read" the punched paper tape that was also used with the
teletype machines, the chart "bits" refer directly to the puched
holes in the tape the sproket hole(spkt) is shown how it
appeared in the tape.

As a point of interest, though the US military used all modes of
communications, phone, teletype, radio, both phone and teletype
were not classed as "secure". It wasn't until around 1955 that
the mechanical "crypto" units were thought secure enough to be
fitted to the military teletype network and "secure" traffic
could be sent in an automated fashion. Prior to this all
"secure" traffic went via courier or encrypted radio telegraphy
(morse key and handy dandy code book!). This is why I feel the
"message" could be a "secure" signal, it could have been
received as "secure R/T", jotted down in pencil in it's code
groups and forwarded to the "crypto" unit were it would be
decoded and typed up on sheet stationery by a unit clerk ready
for presentation. But if the message is related to the events at
Roswell would the enormaty of the situation even allow this type
of traffic to go via a manual "crypto unit" ?. What sort of
security clearance did the people in those units have? as they
would have to handle at some point the traffic in "clear" and,
of course have to read and understand it to process it. So,
could it be the other "secure" alternative, a "courier"
delivered message typed on the senders "unit stationery". It is
the most secure (least eyes) method, but it would also have the
disadvantage of being the slowest too.

>And lastly, the news department had a habit of stamping the top
>of a teletype after it came in, for whatever reason. I'm not
>familiar with the habits of the military back in those days. Is
>it possible that they, too, stamped teletypes upon receipt? If
>so, it might explain the "header" at the top of the memo. Just a
>thought...

This sort of ties in with your first point, both the "heading"
and the "seal" could be "stamped", but their placement seems
quite accurate and ordered, not the result of "stamping", I also
feel the size of the "header" works against it being stamped.
The "seal", what can be made out of it, also seems a lot more
detailed than the samples of circular "stamped" seals I have
seen on documents of this date, many were of just the std
"received" or automated "received/date /time" type or simple
dept/group identifiers and didn't include the amount of detail
the "message" seal seems to have.

Neil.

--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
UK.                \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/
G8KOQ


             E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk

Roswell and Alien Autopsy Archive->  http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/
Dave Willetts Home Page->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/dave_willetts/
Mike Sterling Home Page->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/mike-s/
Tim Morgan Home Page   ->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/tim-m/

*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                             Re: Hypnotic Abuse

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:41:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:22:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:06:48 +0100

<snips>

>Personally, I dont think hypnosis works, but I am not actually
>opposed to its use provided the witness goes into it fully
>informed and at their own conscious insistence (not through
>agreeing with the subconscious desire of a UFO investigator to
>try to come up with the next big case).  Also provided the code
>is strictly adhered to and the regression is conducted by a
>medical doctor who monitors the percipient for blood pressure,
>etc , at all times. I think it is useful to have comparative
>data between hypno and non hypno cases.

>However, I feel that Britain is really taking a stand against
>indiscriminate use of regression in some other parts of the
>world - where, to generalise, young people can without any
>breech of rules be regressed by non medically qualified people.
>That, in my view, is wholly inappropriate for this subject and
>if it needed BUFORA (as we did) to possibly over-react through
>an outright ban and send a message out. It was worth doing. I am
>merely sad, that in the usual muddle of BUFORA, nothing like
>enough was ever done to make the world aware of our moritorium
>or why we were taking these decisive steps. As a result it has
>been an empty gesture to some extent. But I am very glad we made
>it even so. Because we showed that what counts in a case is the
>welfare of the witness above all else. Too often ufologists
>selfishly judge the need for hypnosis on their desire to get a
>good story out - even if they dont realise they are doing this.
>Self regulation through a code of practice seems like a 'nanny
>state' thing as people have told me. But it is better than a
>free for all. It shows witnesses, science and the public that we
>are thinking about our responsibilities so I remain 100%
>committed to the code of practice and urge all those groups out
>there (probably 90% of UK groups and 99% of world groups) who
>have not signed up - or in many cases dont even know such a
>thing exists - to consider taking the plunge. At the moment
>BUFORA and a few others are a drop in the bucket. One day the
>bucket will fall apart.

Jenny,

I haven't much jumped into the hypnosis debate, but your
comments regarding responsible use of the technique in order to
protect witnesses struck a chord. I have heard firsthand, at
abduction conferences and the like, people meeting with friends
and saying things such as "Hey I just completed my course in
hypnosis! If you guys need anyone hypnotized, give me a call."
I've also been informed (though not verified firsthand, because
in many cases I understand it to be a tightly kept secret) that
many local abduction 'support' type groups have other abductees
who have had absolutely no training regressing other witnesses.
Again, anecdotes, but I'm not making a scientific arument here,
just hoping irreperable damage isn't being done. But if the
damage is being done, I think Budd Hopkins is probably the least
of our worries. The eager UFO buff who decides 'because Budd can
do it, I can do it, and I even had a 3 hour seminar!' may be
causing the majority of the damage.

I will stay away from the entire debate regarding regressing
children, as that really pushes me to the limit of losing it (I
refer here not to Budd Hopkins, but in general), except to say I
personally don't feel _anyone_ should be regressing children,
much less anyone who is not extremely qualified to do so.
Allowing someone (especially someone unqualified) to do this to
you is one thing, but allowing it to be done to your child.....

As others have suggested, I do not doubt that lawsuits on this
matter will be brought forth in the future.

Tim






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                       P-47: Astronaut Cooper and UFOs

From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@KOYOTE.COM>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:19:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:10:05 -0400
Subject: P-47: Astronaut Cooper and UFOs

Good morning, All.

Not long ago I remember someone saying that Astronaut Gorden
Cooper flatly denied ever having seen a UFO.  Well, last night
on The History Channel as part of their "In Search of History"
series, they broadcast a segment entitled "Ancient Aliens".  At
the end of the show is a segment with Astronaut Cooper talking
about his and his fellow aviators attempts to intercept UFOs
while he was stationed in Germany.  He says that the UFOs were
high above any altitude that they could reach and that the UFOs
were flying in the same types of formations that they used but
were much faster and more maneuverable than their fighter
aircraft.  He said the UFOs were metallic looking and looked
like the aircraft that he (Cooper) and his fellow pilots were
flying except that they had no wings.

Although not mentioned by Cooper during the show, if I remember
my sightings reports correctly, Cooper and his fellow aviators
tried to intercept the UFOs many times over a period of many
days.  Although they could get to altitudes where they could see
the UFOs, they could not get high enough to actually intercept
them.

At the end of the segment, Cooper states plainly that he
believes in UFOs and that he believes that we are being visited
by an intelligent civilization from outside our solar system.

Loy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                  Re: Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:33:40 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:04:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952


>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:47:14
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>Subject: Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952


>***

>From: Kooolhand@webtv.net (Jim Ball)
>Newsgroups: alt.alien.research
>Subject: UFO Phenomena
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:12:08 -0400 (EDT)


>I've been pondering this UFO business since personally observing
>the big flap around D. C. in the 50's while on duty at Bolling
>AFB.

>There were hard radar targets - several - moving at fantastic
>speeds. We went out on the flightline after scrambling several
>fighters to intercept them to watch the show, and it was a
>spectacular one to see.

>These lights accomplished some incredible maneuvers, impossible
>even with today's aircraft.

>Nobody had a clue as to what we were witnessing, except that it
>was unearthly, or unexplainable, to say the least.

Hi Jim,

It is interesting to hear from an eye-witness to this event.
More detail would be appreciated.

>There was never an acceptable AF explanation to describe what
>we, and thousands of others, witnessed. I'm still stumped, but I
>now have a theory for all to comment on: perhaps these craft are
>beings from another dimension parallel to our earth, but in a
>different time-space continuum....they can enter our space when
>they wish, but we can't enter, or even see theirs, which is far
>advanced from ours.

>What do you think....is this a possible credible thesis?

As for the theory you offer above, this wouldn't be the first
time that I have seen or heard this put forward.

Some Ufologists and in particular science fiction have embraced
it. It's not one that I find myself entertaining.

Best,

Don Ledger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                  Re: Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952

From: Jim Ball <Kooolhand@webtv.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:55:17 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:17:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952


>Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:33:40 -0300
>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952

>>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:47:14
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>>Subject: Witness To Washington Flap July, 1952

>>From: Kooolhand@webtv.net (Jim Ball)
>>Newsgroups: alt.alien.research
>>Subject: UFO Phenomena
>>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:12:08 -0400 (EDT)

>>I've been pondering this UFO business since personally observing
>>the big flap around D. C. in the 50's while on duty at Bolling
>>AFB.

>>There were hard radar targets - several - moving at fantastic
>>speeds. We went out on the flightline after scrambling several
>>fighters to intercept them to watch the show, and it was a
>>spectacular one to see.

>>These lights accomplished some incredible maneuvers, impossible
>>even with today's aircraft.

>>Nobody had a clue as to what we were witnessing, except that it
>>was unearthly, or unexplainable, to say the least.

>Hi Jim,

>It is interesting to hear from an eye-witness to this event.
>More detail would be appreciated.


At that period in time we were all paranoid about the Soviet
Union and their advanced weapon systems; we were at war in Korea
with the Chinese and North Koreans. There was kind of a national
hysteria present, including military personnel.  So a cursory
conclusion, encouraged by our superiors, was that we were
seeing: Northern Lights, Venus, Mars, weather balloons,
temperature inversion, stars, reflections of city lights
(although there was no cloud cover that night) and a myriad of
other earthly things, either singly or in combination, during
the activity of that warm July evening.

These lights performed incredible manuevers at impossible speeds
- our fighters tried to give chase but could never close. There
were always solid radar returns on pilot's radar. as well as the
Bolling tower radar...so there were definitely things up there
which registered solid radar returns. We watched the show,
fascinated and amazed....what were these things? To this day I
still don't know and our superiors ordered us not to discuss it
further, so we didn't.... still, we all knew what we saw.

Jim Ball








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:45:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:23:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:18:34 -0400

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:55:56 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>On the other hand, we can point to some abductees who've seen
>>their lives radically altered by tales of alien abduction. So
>>what if there are a few, some, many who have deal with alien
>>abduction easily or well. There are those who have not... but,
>>these would be some of the dreaded anecdotes.

>That's why anecdotes are treacherous. I know or have heard of
>people whose lives have been hurt by heavy metal, on-line chat
>rooms, and rollerblading. Should I start crusading to prove
>those things are harmful? I know someone who ruined herself
>financially because she was obsessed with a world-famous opera
>diva, and followed the singer around the world, attending every
>performance she gave. Does this mean opera is a problem?

>It's tempting to think we know something because we can tell
>stories that support our point of view.

<snips>

>It's the same with abductions. It's pointless to tell stories of
>people hurt by believing they'd been abducted, and equally
>pointless, from a scientific point of view, for me to say that
>people have been helped by coming to accept that belief. I only
>tell my stories to balance the other side, to say that the
>stories don't all go one way. What's missing on both sides is,
>again, quantitative data. How many people have been helped by
>accepting that they think they've been abducted, how many have
>been hurt?

>Until we have solid information, we're stuck in a vacuum. And
>we'll all just repeat the stories that support our own point of
>view.


Hi Greg, Kevin, etc.

First, congrats again to 'Doc Kev' on his acadmemic
accomplishment. As an aside- kevin, may I ask what your
dissertation was on? Just curious if you were at all able to
bring in the UFO stuff into your work, even in an indirect
manner.

With that said...

For some time, I have had an interest in talking to people who,
at some point in the past, believed that they had been abducted
by aliens, only to later change their mind and come to the
conclusion that there was actually a different explanation for
their experience(s).

I think this issue may bring up another problem with such
anecdotes, besides the many probs Greg has pointed out so well.

Is it not a safe assumption that people who have been harmed by,
or at the very least, changed, their beliefs regarding what
happened to them would be less likely to be vocal about the
issue?

Consider someone who, for whatever period of time, came to
believe (either on their own or with the 'help' of a group or
individual) that they were abducted by aliens.

If this person should later come to the conclusion that this
idea was wrong, they may be very embarrassed to admit and
discuss that they had come to believe something which might now
sound like utter hogwash to them. And wouldn't they also be less
likely to be involved in any 'UFO/abduction' related affairs,
such as email lists like this one, organizations and
publications, etc (in short, wouldnt they be likely to say
'Screw this' and walk away from the entire business, leading to
a lack of negative anecdotes, on average)?

It reminds me of the arguments regarding Alcoholics Anonymous
and the number of addicts it has helped - that being, how do we
measure the number the folks who walk into one meeting and
_never_ come back, either because they dealt with their problems
on their own, or continued to live with them unsolved (btw, I am
not knocking AA, it has helped many people, but I don't think
anyone has an idea how many people it _failed_ to help, which is
my point).

I would guess the negative anecdotes, while not non-existent,
may be much harder to come by....then again, while what I just
said may not be an anecdote, it _is_ an admitted speculation ;-)

I know this is a somewhat seperate issue from what Kevin was
discussing (people who still believe they have been abducted, and
have had their lives turned upside down by that belief), but I
thought it was another aspect worthy of throwing in the pot.

Best,
TB






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:33:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:19:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:45:18 -0500

>Is it not a safe assumption that people who have been harmed by,
>or at the very least, changed, their beliefs regarding what
>happened to them would be less likely to be vocal about the
>issue?

Very good thought, Tim.

Of course, in a quasi-organized abductee situation -- I'm
thinking of Budd Hopkins, and his occasional support group
meetings (they haven't been held regularly, at least in recent
years) -- you might get people talking about their doubts to
each other. And that would come out informally, not in the
meetings, necessarily, but in private conversation. For what
it's worth, I've heard of almost none of that, and I've been
very friendly with many of the people in Budd's circle. (John
Velez can speak about this with more knowledge than I have.)

Also, the skeptics are there for anyone who wants to go public
with a recantation. They provide an incentive to speak out --
not for everyone, obviously, but maybe for some.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                              Re: RIPT & MJ-12

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:10:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:43:08 -0400
Subject: Re: RIPT & MJ-12


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:11:14 EDT
>Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:35:57 -0400
>Subject: Re: RIPT & MJ-12

>Here is the real important part of this posting. There are
>subjective judgments being made. We are interpreting what we see
>with a best guess regardless of the sophistication of the
>equipment.

Most of the message on casual inspection is ambiguous (about
80%), but some of it is not (about 20% of the words can be made
out without much difficulty).  There is near unanimity of
opinion  to certain words and phrases.  Furthermore, it is NOT a
case of everything goes.   Letter counts, spelling, and
grammatical rules of semantics and syntax greatly restrict the
number of interpretations that can be applied to the more
ambiguous sections. We may not be able to say with absolute
certainty that sections of the message say exactly this or that.
But we can certainly eliminate many interpretations and narrow
it down to a few likely possibilities.  The gist of the message
is generally pretty clear, even if some of the specifics (e.g.,
abbreviation of an unknown military unit being referred to) are
very much open to interpretation.

>We are interpreting the message in the context of the
>assumption that it relates to the Roswell case.

Of course, because it _obviously_ relates to the Roswell case
(see below).  Context is a valuable tool used by cryptographers,
or photointerpreters, or whomever, trying to pull out a signal
partially buried in noise.  Human language is inherently
ambiguous even in the best of circumstances.  Humans apply
context all the time to disambiguate meaning.  And the noisier
the situtation, the more context is applied.  Common examples
include reading bad handwriting or picking out the thread of
conversation in noisy cocktail party chatter.

Sure it's possible to go badly astray if one isn't careful, but
you are asking us to throw out an extremely valuable tool of
language interpretation.

>We have no evidence that this is the case. All we KNOW is that Ramey, on
>July 8, was holding this document in his hand.

Kevin, this is like catching Ramey with a smoking gun in his
hand pumping the last bullet into the corpse and then saying
that we have no evidence that he was involved with this
particular murder.

Of course there is _plenty_ of evidence.

First of all _timing_.  He is holding the message at the very
height of the Roswell brouhaha, the very reason the photos were
taken in the first place.  It's not the next day or the next
week.  Ramey was in the midst of spinning the story for the
press.  He'd just gotten off the phone with at least one
reporter and also the Pentagon press room.

But more importantly are the WORDS that can clearly be made out in this
message (or have nearly unanimous agreement).

2nd & 3rd lines.  "....the victims [or James Easton's "remains"]
of the wreck you forwarded [or "conveyed" -- same thing] to ....
at Fort Worth, Tex.

So something [nearly everybody reads it as "victims"] of some
"wreck" were sent on to Fort Worth.  How many "wrecks" were
there in this period and how many of them had to have something
sent on to Fort Worth, whether "victims" or "remains"?

4th line.  Something relating to "the 'disc'".
6th line.  Something relating to "weather balloons."

Whatever the specific context,  how many messages did Ramey
normally handle that contained a reference to "the 'disc'" or to
"weather balloons?"  Of course, directly beneath him was the
wreckage of a weather balloon (the corpse?) which Ramey was in
the midst of passing off as the explanation for the Roswell base
"flying disc" press release.

5th line.  The word "Roswell" is probably there.  [Though RPIT
mysteriously reads this as "Magdalena"]

7th line.  Last word is "crews."

Whatever was going on, "crews" were involved and it had
something to do with "the wreck."

Unless you can come up with some other period wreck that
required shipping of something to Fort Worth, would be referred
to as a "disc," somehow involved "weather balloons" and "crews,"
and required Gen. Ramey's personal attention at the height of a
press feeding frenzy over a crashed "flying disk," I think we
can safely conclude that this message had something to do with
the Roswell incident.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:13:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:44:54 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:05:14 -0400
>From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>With the compliments of the Duke of mendoza:>

>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:39:46 -0700
>>From: Judith Dale <judithdale@earthlink.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'>

>>Yes, well, the CDC and WHO would like us to believe that the
>>origin of HIV lies in the Green Monkey. However, there is also
>>the theory that HIV was grown in the biological warfare labs,
>>which interestingly are often in the same companies that
>>produce vaccines.

>Here are the antidotes to this kind of factoid:

I thank Menoza for his excellent discourse on AIDS history and





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                         Re: Crisis..... What Crisis

From: Jerry Anderson <jerry@uforesearch.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:29:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:49:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Crisis..... What Crisis


Dear List,

My view at present, is that Ufology is in turmoil....and judging
from some of the recent postings to this list, I am convinced
that this is the case.

No doubt there will be responses from some of you refuting the
claim, that is your opinion and your right. For now, please hear
me out.

In an 'ideal' world, we would all get along fine and agree with
anything and everything. However ideal that sounds, one can't
help but realise that it would be extremely boring and mundane!
I encourage constructive criticism and support lively and
stimulating debate on all matters. what I certainly do NOT
condone is character assassination, back stabbing, and
condescending behaviour.....the like of which we have been
witness to in the past, and just recently.

There are many, many, investigators in the UFO field that are
conducting excellent research, despite the usual lack of funds,
resources, and everything else that is part and parcel of
Ufology, including making mistakes....which we are ALL guilty of
to one degree or another! Whatever our social or educational
background, we all have a common interest for one reason or
another. That in itself connects us. There must be some reason
why we all find this subject so fascinating. Enthusiasm to find
the truth is encouraged, but at the same time it can lead us
astray. Enthusiasm to prove that there is nothing is blinkered,
and can be cold and calculating, as in the Max Burns episode.

I have never met Max, but if I did I would probably feel as
though I should apologise on behalf of the so-called
intellectuals that did a dis-service to Ufology by 'setting up'
a researcher who had no way of checking the credentials of an
unknown source. What other option did Max have but to follow the
'lead' up? Any investigator worth his/her salt would have done
the same, I don't care who they are.

Hoaxing and researching by the same person/s do _not_ go
together and only succeed in rendering the perpetrators as
unreliable and fraudulent. I'm all for trying to find the truth,
but I do not want to be associated with people of that ilk, nor
do I wish to have anything to do with so-called researchers
ridiculing others.

There are _no_ experts in Ufology, just experts in areas of
research connected with it. Dear colleagues, let us try and
exchange information and notes.....not insults.

Jerry Anderson    - UFOMEK     (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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                        Re: Crisis..... What Crisis?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:46:25 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 03:29:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Crisis..... What Crisis?


>From: Jerry Anderson <jerry@uforesearch.freeserve.co.uk>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Crisis..... What Crisis?
>Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:29:13 +0100

Dear List, and you others ... you know who you are!  Please
allow me to prove a point.  Please?  Thank you.  Just sample the
following and when you come to the end, I will explain.  I am
_not_ marking this post with a scarlet "S" and I am aksing that
EBK not post a "Caution, Humor" caveat just this one time. I
promise never to aks this again... (as he crosses the only two
fingers he has, having lost the last two in a game of tiddly
winks)...  Here we go.

>Dear List,

>My view at present, is that Ufology is in turmoil....and judging
>from some of the recent postings to this list, I am convinced
>that this is the case.

Turmoil ... agitation, confusion, dither, flap, lather, pother,
stew, tumult, turbulence ... according to that Miriam broad.  We
concur.

>No doubt there will be responses from some of you refuting the
>claim, that is your opinion and your right. For now, please
>hear me out.

Oh no, Mo... UFO research _is_ in such a state.

>In an 'ideal' world, we would all get along fine and agree with
>anything and everything. However ideal that sounds, one can't
>help but realise that it would be extremely boring and mundane!
>I encourage constructive criticism and support lively and
>stimulating debate on all matters. what I certainly do NOT
>condone is character assassination, back stabbing, and
>condescending behaviour.....the like of which we have been
>witness to in the past, and just recently.

Me needer, Mo.  Say Jerry, I hope you don't mind my appellation,
"Mo." It's just that it sort of rhymed with "Oh no!"

>There are many, many, investigators in the UFO field that are
>conducting excellent research, despite the usual lack of funds,
>resources, and everything else that is part and parcel of
>Ufology, including making mistakes....which we are ALL guilty of
>to one degree or another!

Sorry Jerry.  I do not agree here.  We do not all make mistakes.
For example, in the area of character assassination, some people
out there have never made a mistake from my perspective.  In
fact, quite the opposite.  Every time someone attempted to
assassinate my character, no matter which voice in my head was
speaking to me at the time, the assassin was dead on right, each
occasion.  Especially, uh, well, doesn't matter who it was....

>Whatever our social or educational
>background, we all have a common interest for one reason or
>another. That in itself connects us.

Please forgive me for contradicting yous again, Mo, but no one
is at all connected with me who does not have at least _ONE_
Ph.D. Which is why I refer to Mr. Errol Bruce Knapp as "DOCTOR
Kanappy!" Whenever I speak with, correspond with or otherwise
communicate with _anyone_ on any subject, if they do not have at
least one Ph.D., I will not carry on the communication.  That is
why I confer an "Honorary" Gesundt Ph.D. on them prior to the
communication.

And this is why I sent Dr. Kanappy a copy of my Curriculum Vitae
framed in 24 carrot gold plate.  He never published it on this
list.  However I cannot blame him.  Such a CV would intimidate
anyone out there.  Which is also why I had to sort of chuckle at
the person who just got a Ph.D.  and announced it on UpDates.  I
mean, for crying out loud, only _ONE_ LOUSY Ph.D.?  Aint nuttin
to brag about.  I got twelve.

>There must be some reason
>why we all find this subject so fascinating. Enthusiasm to find
>the truth is encouraged, but at the same time it can lead us
>astray. Enthusiasm to prove that there is nothing is blinkered,
>and can be cold and calculating, as in the Max Burns episode.

Of course there are. We all want to appear on TV, radio and in
print. That's why most of us who claim to be "experiencers" are
lying through our teeth!  We just want the attention it gives
us.  I know that's my reason.

>I have never met Max, but if I did I would probably feel as
>though I should apologise on behalf of the so-called
>intellectuals that did a dis-service to Ufology by 'setting up'
>a researcher who had no way of checking the credentials of an
>unknown source. What other option did Max have but to follow the
>'lead' up? Any investigator worth his/her salt would have done
>the same, I don't care who they are.

>Hoaxing and researching by the same person/s do _not_ go
>together and only succeed in rendering the perpetrators as
>unreliable and fraudulent. I'm all for trying to find the truth,
>but I do not want to be associated with people of that ilk, nor
>do I wish to have anything to do with so-called researchers
>ridiculing others.

Absolutely wrong again.  Cheeses, Jerry, Mo, whoever you are,
you just don't get it do you!  Hoaxing and researching by the
same person is essential to the hoax.  Each time you get hoaxed
by an ex-spurt, you are not intimidated.  But each time you get
hoaxed by a non believer, a skeptic, you feel ill-used, don't
you?  Now do you get it?

>There are _no_ experts in Ufology, just experts in areas of
>research connected with it. Dear colleagues, let us try and
>exchange information and notes.....not insults.

Here we have a conundrum.  I agree, and I also disagree.  I
agree that there are no experts in ufology.  But there are a
whole bunch of has-been drips (ex-spurts) in ufology and there
always will be.

As for the insults.  If you do not insult someone, you are not
debating correctly.  I can prove it.  Look at any political
campaign in any country, for any office, even dog catcher, and
you will _never_ see or hear of such a campaign without
insulting and demeaning your opponent.  Our entire planet is
ruled by people who have done _exactly_ that.  Are we on the
same frequency yet?

>Jerry Anderson    - UFOMEK     (UK)

Do you remember that at the opening of this post, I said I would
explain why I aksed for your forbearance?  I said that I would
explain?  Remember?

Well, I lied.

Dr. Jaime Gesundt, CSUSADHOFMW,C,P & Deli Meats.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                        Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'

From: Sharon Kardol <sharon@hotmix.com.au>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:16:23 +0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 03:41:00 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'


>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:37:25 -0700
>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>From: Phillip S Duke <drpduke@juno.com>

>>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
>>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: 'The AIDS-ET Connection'
>>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:50:30 -0700


Mr Duke,

Your post was very interesting, but I hoping you could clarify a
few things.


>Dear Mr. McCoy,


<snip>

>It appears your understanding of human science cloning
>procedures is imperfect. So far only the gray aliens have
>produced alien/human hybrids. I refer you to Dr. David M.
>Jacobs' 1998 book The Threat. It is all on this important
>subject.


And your basing your "perfect" understanding on the the
beliefs of one book?

>The "monkey bite" idea is politically correct just like the
>"Roswell balloons" etc. If you buy one you buy both as they are
>brought you as part of the same politically correct package.
>There is no good evidence for the monkey bite idea despite the
>government's trying hard.

Is there evidence disproving the monkey bite theory, though?

<snip>

>You characterize HIV as a "hard to get" disease. According to
>AmFAR by 2000 AD 110 million people will have HIV of which 10
>million are children. According to Dr. Grmek M.D. Ph.D.the
>spread is "exponential" with "cataclysmic" expectations. As you
>say, all that's necessary to control transmission is to control
>people's sexual activities. Is that easy? Likely? You know the
>answer.


I think what he was saying is that it should be a hard to get
disease.  We know how to prevent it's spread yet it infects more
and more people everyday.

<snip>

>When enough people are sick, dying and dead, which will be
>sooner than you think (if you ever think) human civilization
>will collapse. Eliminating organized human opposition to The
>Day.

I was following you until there. Aids will never take over
enough of the population for it to collapse because we too much
about how to prevent it's spread.  We could effectively
eliminate it's spread from our planet tommorrow if there was a
collaborative effort across the world. And what does "The Day"
refer to? Starting to sound a little paranoid.

<snip>

>Nor on the
>abductee whose HIV test changed with his implant removal. How do
>you explain these facts? FACTS. Not funny (to you) criticisms
>without basis. But _facts_.

Interesting case, but are ther anymore examples to back up your
claims, or is this it?  Many strange things happen in nature,
and occur as one offs, so how is this any different to a one off
"interesting, but that's all" type of situation?

<snip>

>Finally, regarding your angry statements "Who do you think you are..."
>I reply thusly:

>I am a graduate of ...

<snip>

Nice to know about all your qualifications, Mr Duke, but why
does Mr McCoy have to have lead the same life as you to be just
as well educated and researched? (whether though traditional
education or self taught).  With all your degrees and contact
with Nobel Prize winners, this ET and Aids "connection" is a
theory of yours and as we do not yet have hard concrete evidence
that grays even exist, it goes beyond nothing more than a
theory.  No matter how well researched.  Very interesting, but
just a theory.

<snip>

>The evidence that HIV/AIDSs are purposeful ET alien creations is
>all laid out in my book. Get the book and read it and then if
>you want criticize. But please don't criticize what you don't
>know about and don't understand. Thank you.

This doesn't help your case at all.  Spend my hard earned money,
just on your word?  If I buy a book on Ufology, it is because I
have heard from others of it's great content and thought
provoking material, and because the author has revealled why I
should buy it.  So tell me, why should anyone buy your book?

>Phillip S. Duke Ph.D.
>drpduke@juno.com


Cheers
Sharon Kardol







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:45:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 04:24:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Bluehare Dark Peak <bluehare24@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:29:45 GMT


>[Non-Subscriber? Post and 'as is' --ebk]

>ATTENTION UFOLOGISTS
>A MESSAGE FROM GENIUS LOKI FOLLOWS

>We are a group of people, active in UFO hoaxing since
>the mid 80s, and going under the collective name of Genius Loki.

If true, disgusting.

It's not as if the noise level isn't high enough.

No wonder this great "ufologist" doesn't want to reveal his
name. What a coward!

Tar and feathers, anyone?

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                        Re: Crisis..... What Crisis?

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:07:19 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:43:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Crisis..... What Crisis?


>From: Jerry Anderson <jerry@uforesearch.freeserve.co.uk>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Crisis..... What Crisis?
>Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:29:13 +0100

<snip>

>Hoaxing and researching by the same person/s do _not_ go
>together and only succeed in rendering the perpetrators as
>unreliable and fraudulent. I'm all for trying to find the truth,
>but I do not want to be associated with people of that ilk, nor
>do I wish to have anything to do with so-called researchers
>ridiculing others.

>There are _no_ experts in Ufology, just experts in areas of
>research connected with it. Dear colleagues, let us try and
>exchange information and notes.....not insults.


Well said, Jerry.

Not only are we researchers, but also, teachers.  It is our
"job" to share the information we have collected with the rest
of the world.  We must set a good example for the young people
who will follow in our footsteps.

Michel M. Deschamps
MUFON Provincial Section Director for Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
and UFO eyewitness






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 25

              Re: Otherworld Reality Conference - Review PT. 2

From: Stephen Miles Lewis - ELFIS <elfis@austin.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:35:34 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:02:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Otherworld Reality Conference - Review PT. 2


Otherworld Reality
"Exploring the Ontological Status of Imaginal Consciousness"
Conference Review Part 2
by SMiles Lewis
www.elfis.net

    Part 1
http://www.elfis.net/RnR/smlotw.htm
    Abstracts-Bios-Links
http://www.elfis.net/RnR/absbio.htm

Conference Day 2
Sunday 5/2/99


 With the conference title of Otherworld Reality and its stated
agenda of Exploring the Ontological Status of Imaginal
Consciousness, this symposium's work was cut out for it. The
previous days explorations into the reality of imaginal
experiences, while providing a fundamental background for the
entirety of the wide spectrum of otherworld consciousness,
lacked the physical data required to satisfy most as to the true
nature of their ontological status. An anthropologist,
philosopher, dream researcher, mathematician and others seemed
to come up short when it came to truly "pinning down" the
physical REALITY of Imaginal Encounters. Though they each gave
details of the phenomena which point to the validity of
information revealed through the experiencing of imaginal
consciousness, the second days' line-up of speakers beckoned us
onward towards more arena's within which to continue our
pursuit.

 The second morning of the conference, having a better grasp of
getting around on the tubes, I used the Circle line to get to
Embankment station right by the conference location near the
river Thames. I arrived just in time to say hello to a few
people and make my way upstairs to take my seat.

 The actual conference speaking room was a square
high-ceilinged hall on the second floor of the Royal Society of
Arts, which the brochure calls the Great Room. The main doors
enter upon its tiered space midway up the stepped enclosure. All
four walls are adorned in an almost garrish panorama
representative of a Renaissance style by painter James Barry
titled The Progress of Human Knowledge. It was both impressive
and perhaps a little gawdy. The centerpiece of the room's high
ceiling was an apparent cuppola which had a circular patch at
its center (which turned out to be a sky light  opened only
briefly before the first speaker after lunch). The room could
supposedly seat up to 200 audience members. The head of the
tierred hall falls at the bottom level to your right as you
enter its main double doors from the south side. On this bottom
level were the panel chairs behind a long narrow table. Facing
it head on one finds the actual speaker's podium to one's right;
a video camera watching the audience over the speakers'
shoulders and the slide, overhead/video projector screen hanging
above and behind the panel table. Most intriguing to me was the
doorway, usually closed, at the back left of the panel table,
which when opened revealed an impressive atrium-like stone
stairwell area which may have connected at least four other
rooms across two levels. . .

Peter Rojcewicz

  The first speaker was Peter Rojcewicz whom I'd the pleasure
of sharing lunch with the day before. Peter's paper was
originally to be an overview of the different types of imaginal
experiences from ufo encounters to NDEs and beyond. However, he
changed his paper topic completely to address the deepening
problem of higher education and its lack of encompassing noetics
to better the life loving capacities of the student body. I had
a prelude of his paper from speaking with him the previous day
over sandwiches with Brian Johnson, Tony Arcari, and Michael
Grosso. Peter is an excellent speaker, and though I was a little
disappointed at not hearing his descriptions of the multitudes
of imaginal experiences (including his own encounter with an
MIB), this fact reminded me of the Eastern perspective that it
is not as important to focus on these phenomena as such, so much
as it is important to learn the lessons they may teach us so
that we may better our living within this reality.

 That is what his focus was on; the incorporation of the
lessons to be learned from these phenomena within the existing
institutions of higher learning. A return to the charge of
these schools to more fully educate the students at what it is
to be human. Not to continue the existing monetary paradigm
which Colleges and Universities find themselves in today. With
conviction and compassion Peter convinces us of the necessity
to do so if we ever hope to turn around the downward spiral of
the materialist paradigms which have brought us so close to the
brink of dehumanized existance we find ourselves already
knee-deep in today.

 Peter began with a quote from Jung on the nature of the
addict; the addiction is ultimately a thirst for gnosis and
wholeness. This thirst for wholeness is within all of us,
especially those who seek after these phenomena. Peter states
that the "healing of the split requires a long multidisciplinary
effort." Unfortunately, in our culture, "curing is usually a
quick fix."

 Mr. Rojcewicz' proposition for fixing the same split in our
gnosis institutes was to state that "Noetic Education promotes
development of other modes of knowing; experiential, moral,
aesthetic. Extrarational modalities encompassing analytical
approaches to myth, etc." Why should we accept such a proposal?
Because, "all modes of seeing have blindspots." The Noetic
student becomes a "Human Intellectual Hermes" capable in the
art of the "Reading of Images," cultivating an "Aesthetic
Literacy."

 Peter went on to say that "lack of this literacy propogates
the ability to be manipulated, for image is the primary source
of philosophy." This is the "paradoxical nature of Image as
psychic basis and social reality." All human experiencing of
"physical, social and religious realities is inferred as image."

 Ultimately the two consequences of the adoption of such an
Aesthetic Literacy, according to Rojcewicz, is the knowledge
that "we are tools for exploration, primary instruments of
learning" and the "discovery of the interior life of exterior
matter."

 Peter's concluding remarks where very Jungian in their
understanding of the need for the integration of the Shadow:
There is "no wholeness without pathology."

Richard Rudgley

 Richard Rudgley provided the second presentation which was an
extremely good ethnography of the imaginal as found within the
ancient global entheogenic (psychedelic plants) shamanic
traditions. Mr. Rudgley, though a reserved speaker, did a fine
job of illustrating the incredibly long history of the use of
such psychoactive compounds as ayahuasca, ginger, tobacco,
mushrooms, the elusive soma, and more, dating back perhaps as
long as 60,000 years to the time of the neanderthals. He gave
specific information on many aspects of this most valuable area
of research that I was not nearly as familiar with as I had
thought. He was also rather humorous in that dry British way.

 Beginning with an appreciation of the fact that western
cultural approaches to psychoactives are similar to the west's
approach to the imaginal Rudgley embarked upon his own
investigative approach which embraces the plants value as
imaginal facilitators. A litany of examples of the varying
degrees of use of such plants throughout both old worlds and new
lends evidence for a cultural difference instead of a lack of
biodiversity as the probable reason. It seems to always flourish
among cultures which come to integrate instead of irradicate.
Other variables needed to understand disparities of use among
different cultures revolve around issues of researcher bias. One
such bias being more investigation into the sacred use of such
plants in male mystery cults as opposed to female ones.

 Amongst some New Guniea initiatory rites, akin to those of
Masonics and other secret societies, there is a documented
system of 12 succesive levels starting the neophyte out with the
ceremonial use of large amounts of ginger often coupled with
fasting. Though typically not considered a psychoactive plant,
ginger can apparently become so if used within an enculturated
"mystery religion" context. Initiates use these trance
catalysts to travel out of the body with the help of ancestor
spirits whereupon they gain the knowledge of that particular
level's lesson. Increasingly difficult lessons are rewarded with
increased ecstatic ascetism. Apparently narratives from the
Americas' offer similar reports.

 Mr. Rudgley proceeded to illucidate the even more unknown, to
me, use of tobacco as a pscyhoactive facilitator. He chronicled
its spread from South America where it originated to eventual
be spread world wide. Tobacco, again in sufficiently excessive
amounts, has been used for generations by shamans as a near
death induction technique to learn the origins of disease, says
Mr. Rudgley. The smoking of 5 or 6 three foot cigars in one
session is not uncommon. Prior to the European invasion tobacco
use was entirely sacred. Continuing the tobacco chronicle
Richard suggested that perhaps the origins of agriculture arose
from the cultivation of sacred plants and not utilitarian food
production. He also raised the issue of the early European
perspective of all smoke as hellish and thus demonic in nature.
Mr. Rudgley ended the tobacco expose with a reminder that when
the "Russians" introduced it to the Siberians they quickly took
it up for psychoactive use.

 Then came an expose of the Ayahuascan "Vine of the Soul" used
by over 70 groups in South America and made from a mixture of
over 100 plants. This entheogen's use has been dramaticly
interwoven within and throughout the entirety of these cultures.
All aspects of their daily and artistic lives is informed by the
geometry of the realms opened by the concoction. The variety of
admixtures and cultural contexts creates a multitude of
different effects, however all of them create a consistently
recognizable "psychic shorthand" of shapes and forms as well as
an appreciation that THIS reality is the UNreality as compared
to the opposite Western take. There is also a sexual connotation
dealing with metaphors of the Cosmic Womb, says Rudgley.

 In a brief informational on Peyote, Rudgely spoke of the
discovery of peyote cacti remains found in a thousand year old
grave. He gave one example of the negative effects of
psychoactive use upon an aboriginal culture which involved the
sudden use of peyote by its warrior class. Previously its use
had been forbidden to all except the shamen. The use of the drug
outside the sacred context of the caste system undermined the
entire social order of the community.

 Toward the end of his talk, Richard Rudgley pondered the
identity of the elusive Soma described in the ancient Iranian
Divine Comedy. It describes the use of two psychoactives. Was
it some combination of Ephedra, Cannabis, and/or Opium? Again
the question of how far back psychoactive use goes within human
history is raised. Perhaps 60,000 years to a famous "flower
burial" which found that the pollen of six of the species had
indentifiable medicinal properties, including ephedra.

 Finally, Richard surprised me with a hum-dinger piece of
information; DMT may exist in higher levels in the spinal
fluids of schizophrenics. Shades of Dennis and Terrance
McKenna's assertions that the human brain can produce a DMT
experience "on the natch." Rudgley mused on the possibility of
Kundalini symbollogy being connected to this idea of DMT laced
spinal fluid. Niedam [sic?] is the term he used to describe the
physiological creation of psychoactives. Something he thinks
may ultimately lead to a new field of paraphysiology.

 During the brief tea break I found myself again speaking with
a beautiful psychic I had been questioned by at the end of
yesterday's proceedings. She and her husband of seven years (a
man who conscpicuously looked like Bill Clinton) spoke to me
about their use of new digital camera techniques and
technologies which allow for the photographing and interpreting
of human energy fields. She uses these in her practice of the
shamanic arts to heal many people. She also spoke to me of the
negative effects that one speaker at an ISEEM conference in
Colorado had inflicted upon her (and possibly the other audience
members).

Karl Jansen

 Returning from the break we were treated to the most animated
speaker of the conference by far, Mr. Karl Jansen, who spoke on
Ketamine and the NDE. His paper had been retitled "Ketamine:
the Mental Modem." Not only was he the most animated speaker,
walking back and forth across the stage utilizing the wireless
mike that no-one else seemed interested in using, but he also
utilized the slide projector to good effect. His sense of humor
also shone through and his flamboyant gestures were even more
exagerated by his extreme height.

 Mr. Jansen's perspectives provided valuable insights into
Ketamine. It helped dispell some of the myths I had heard as
well as providing vital information about it and its effects
within the brain. He even commented upon its use within the
Club/Dance Culture as well as informing me of several things I
didn't know like that continued use can create boyles and that
it is commonly prescribed, at least in Britain, for ashmatics as
well as for women with regard to obstetrics and gynecology. His
intention to found a Quantum Psychiatry is indeed a much needed,
yet obviously difficult goal.

 At first he focused on K's (Ketamine's) connection to the NDE
and NBE, near death and near birth experiences, respectfully.
Yes, K trips can induce experiences whose narrative is nearly
identical in character to those of NDEs. The near BIRTH
experience is equally valid from Jansen's point of view. "Why
are we so resistant to birth memory?" Karl repeated the refrain
again and again that K does not (usually) stop or lower the
heart rate, nor lower the rate of breathing. He lamented its 30
year safety record and emphasized the point that someone who has
an NDE is not necessarily close to death. In fact he ultimately
believes that the NDE is akin to the brain chemistry effects of
K and is in actuality a defense mechanism to protect against
brain death.

 Jansen describes the narrative descriptions of the effects of
NDEs and K as being similar in their content. Both describe
psychedelic insights about reality, personality, sacredness,
similar sounds, travel by tunnel into a light at high speed,
conviction of death, God, OBEs, other realities, re-experienced
memories, life reviews, clarity, a border between realms. As in
some NDE cases, K trippers, though unconscious, can often
recount the conversations and actions of spectators in the room
with them. Both K trippers and NDEers insist they were not
hallucinating, that the events actually happened. Mr. Jansen
stressed his opinion that just because NDEs can be induced does
not mean that they are unreal. In both experiences, he believes,
the brain is re-tuned to a different reality; a reality of
quantum connectedness wherein the mind's eye can "toggle between
life and death" as well as travel to any place and time without
the physical body going anywhere. In this way he equates the
timeless realm that is contacted in these NDEs and K-trips as
perhaps explicated by Bell's Theorom: a hyperspace where all
realities exist as a single point.

 Both NDEs/NBEs and K-trips can be very therapeutic if
undertaken within a safe environment. Benefits include more
concern for others, less depression, anxiety, and neurosis.
However it should be stressed that their is a dark side to
Ketamine. Besides the boyles, there is the same very seductive
quality that is the nature of the imaginal. Karl Jansen
continually spoke of the Faustian metaphor and of several
instances where Ketamine enthusiasts took that final trip never
to return. However, he emphasized that of these cases only one
of them could truly be termed an overdose - it is nearly
impossible to do so with this drug. He insists that these
individuals simply chose to not toggle back to the worlds of the
living. In each case the person was very happy in their life but
felt it was time to move on. In this same way, Jansen made a
point to not condemn people who make reality choices that we can
hardly fathom; he specificly cited the case of Heaven's Gate
(during the end of conference panel discussion).

 Mr. Jansen concluded with a much too detailed explanation of
just how Ketamine works within the chemistry of the brain. This
is where he outlined his belief that the NDE is in effect a
defensive mechanism to protect against brain death. He
reiterated his conviction that K actually allows the human mind
to penetrate new realities or "Transpersonal Fields" and that
this should ultimately lead us into the new domain of quantum
psychiatry.

Lunch

 Lunch time brought the inevitable waiting around in the hopes
of hooking up with someone with whom to share in the continued
networking of ideas. Luckily I again found myself in the right
place at the right time. This time, as before, it was with the
pressence of Michael Grosso, but the invitation came from the
other luminary amongst our forming lunch troupe, Stanley
Krippner. I had reintroduced myself to him yesterday right
before his presentation of Vallee's paper/outline. Accepting the
invitation I joined the enterage which ended up dining in a
nice little Italian restaurant right around the corner - in
nearly the opposite direction as the previous days food venture.

 Among our group was a young man (perhaps my junior) who was
lucky enough to get some sort of "scholarship" or grant to
attend. More interesting to me was the pressence of Roger
Woolger, a transpersonal psychotherapist with skills in
regressive hypnosis. Also present were Anthony "Tony" Arcari
(again) and some 'followers' of Mr Woolger's that were a
married couple whose names elude me. During our meal I found
myself talking mostly with Woolger and the wife of said couple;
both of them are extremely experientially educated in all these
matters. This wonderful lady would turn out later to be one of
the major instigators of a fantastic round of dialogue had
during the final Q&A panel discussion at the end of the
conference.

Dean Radin

 Once back at the conference it was time for the final speaker
who was one of the main draws to this event for me;
parapsychologist Dean Radin. Having read his book the Conscious
Universe, which I highly recommend, I was already aware of most
of what he presented but the sheer joy of his speaking style,
his sense of humor, his command of the data, and his effective
use of the overhead projector made him the perfect ending to the
conference. Also, I was overjoyed to hear him state certain
phrases and ideas as well as his assertion that there were no
less than 11 on-line random number generators around the world
continuing the work into Field Consciousness effects.

 Of all the speakers at this conference, Dean Radin was most
certainly the one who best addressed its agenda of exploring
the ontological status of the imaginal. Within Radin's speach we
heard of the most convincing evidence for the physical reality
foundation of psi phenomena and its related aspects of imaginal
consciousness.

 Like so many other speakers before him, Dean began with a Jung
quote. This time it was Jung's words on the interconnectedness
of psyche and matter. Radin also began with a couple of joke
statements. He lamented that there is "no career track for
parapsychology," and asserted in anticipation of the skeptics
regard to these phenomena that "reality isn't what it used to
be."

 You see, "measurement is addictive" according to Radin. He
stated this in the context of describing the three realms
within which we find ourselves looking at data; that of the
objective, subjective, and what he calls the intersubjective.
The intersubjective is his term for the imaginal. He described
the term in relation to the sender/receiver paradigm which has
yielded much success in the now famous telepathy in dream-state
experiments utilizing the ganzfeld technique.

 The really interesting information, though, had to do with
Radin's continuing research of Roger Nelson and what they term
Field Consciousness Effects. The idea, simply put, is that, if
one human mind can influence systems as disparite as other
minds and even machines, then what of the focused attention of
MANY MINDS. This type of experiment tries to verify the
influence of mass consciousness on the output of random systems,
in most cases, an electronic random number generator. Results
have been startlingly successful.

 Dean Radin collected many of these cases in his book and
reviewed them generously during his speech to the conference.
In all test cases, random number generators began producing LESS
RANDOMNESS coincident with events which were known to be
watched by large numbers of people. Some of these events
included Olympic broadcasts, the O.J. Simpson verdict, Princess
Diana's funeral, New Year's Eve, the recent Baseball homerun
excitement, and many many more.

 These experiments are part of the Global Consciousness
Project, also called the EGG, or Electro Gaia Gram. The
reference being to both a metaphoric EEG of the planetary
consciousness and the obvious symbolisms inherant in any egg
analogy.

 By far, the greatest addition to establishing the ontological
status of the imaginal is to be found in the data Dean Radin
presented next; that of the terrestrial and extraterrestrial
forces (geomagnetic and otherwise) discovered that play a part
in the human ability to access the imaginal. Some time ago,
Michael Persinger and Martha Adams investigated the connection
of geomagnetism and incidents of psi, both in spontaneous and
lab cases. What they found were higher numbers of psi incidence
during periods of lower geomagnetic activity. Since many people
had been searching for some electromagnetic compomant to the
mechanisms of psi, this was a breathrough towards new areas of
research. These new avenues are paying off and may soon be a
rather firm foundation for new paradigms of exploration.

 On-line random number generator experiments, coupled with
retro-causation (aka retroPK) research have confirmed an
extraterrestrial componant to psi conducive states: the full
moon. Long known in the occult for its psychic importance,
science has finally proven it does indeed effect the realms of
the physical AND psychical. Web sites like Mr. Walker's
www.fourmilabs.com have shown that INTENTION can be effective
backwards in time. The majority of positive effects were
concurrent with the Full Moon.

 One of the many examples of comparitive, complimentary
research into the effects of the moon upon the human psychic
faculty is best summed up by Radin's research into the nightly
payouts at gambling establishments. With the consent of the
casinos, Dean looked at the nightly payouts and determined that
the old gambler adage that you win more during the full moon....
IS TRUE. Though, as he put it to the casinos, "gamblers just
lose less on these nights."

 Finally, Dean Radin regailed us with yet another recently
discovered extraterrestrial inlfuence on human psychic
functioning: Cosmological effects. I had heard of the important
discovery of a local sidereal time componant to better psi
results but Radin put them into a context I wasn't familiar
with, that of facing into or out of our own galaxy. It seems
that, when facing into the galaxy, there are of course higher EM
levels than if one is facing out into deep space. These higher
EM levels are deliterious to the average psychic human. However,
other evidence has shown this to be the opposite with psychicly
gifted individuals. They seem to actually do better on days of
high geomagnetic activity and so may also do better by facing
into our galaxy.

 Radin concluded by harkening back to the works of Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin and his ideas of the noosphere - human
consciousness entwined about the planet as the next aspect of
human evolution. Dean used the moebius strip analogy to help
explain how it is that some people may in fact perceive
information that most of us cannot. Perhaps these people have
some faculty that is either emergant or dormant within each of
us. Perhaps we will all soon acquire the ability to perceive
time and space as a moebius strip wherein one side is the
physical/objective reality we all share and the other side is
the psychical/subjective realms that mystics have described for
millenia. Maybe gifted psychics have already developed this
intersubjective talent for seeing the psychical and physical as
the moebius strip whose dualistic qualities are simply gained
throught the inverting of one end of the spectrum to connect
with the Other. Perhaps.

Question & Answer Audience/Panel Discussions Exploring the
Imaginario

 The conclusion to the conference was the long-awaited Q&A
Panel Discussion whereby audience members were allowed to ask
specific questions they had prepared and submitted to Stanley
Krippner on note cards. Krippner was the Panel Chair and began
the discussion by utilizing new insights gained from Tony
Arcari's recent Saybrook paper on the differences and
similarities between certain consciousness research
terminologies. Tony had spoken to me of these concepts as well,
and though they seemed simple enough, I had a hard time coming
to grips with them. Krippner went so far as to create a drawing
of these ideas on the overhead projector.  However, this too
failed to totally enlighten me on these ideas. I did like
Stanley's use of the term Imaginario, though, to encapsulate
these concepts.

 Most of the questions and answers were rather staid and
uninteresting until one particular note card from a female
audience member pointed out the distinct lack of women on the
panel. Stanley Krippner did an excellent job of balancing the
potentially chaotic nature of ensueing audience/panel dialogue
which erupted over this issue. He supported the observation
with his own disappointment at this fact but assuaged any
discontent with the news that several women had indeed been
invited to participate but were all unavailable due to other
engagements (no pun intended). Skeptic Susan Blackmore was one
of the invitees who was unable to attend. He went on to
incorporate the valuable insights offered by female audience
members which, as I said, led to some of the best dialogue I
have witnessed in years. Female audience member after female
audience member chimed in with their own perspectives on the
issue of the seeming lack of female representation within the
imaginal/shamanistic traditions discussed within the course of
the conference.

 Most everyone addressed the prevailing biases in researching
gender related issues of consciousness studies. The general
consensus was that it is always difficult for a member of one
sex to investigate the mystery religions of the opposite sex.
Also, modern scientific experiments very often exclude female
subjects in their projects. Reasons range from fear of drug
effects upon the female subject who might become pregnant during
the experiment, to underlying problems within a male dominated
field which often simply ignores the feminine.

 Richard Rudgley asserted that he was not only aware of female
psychoactive societies but also of male ones which practice
such acts as ritual penile blood-letting, as a sort of menstrual
envy.

 Charles Laughlin stated that women have easier access to these
states and thus don't need the neurocognitive drivers such as
initiatory rites. Someone else mentioned the differences
between men and women's corpus collosum connections. Still
others mentioned some experiments which point to gender
differences in psychic ability: men do better influencing
machines where as women to better in less mechanistic type
exercises.

 Another audience member brought up the subject of
transgender/transexual shamanism to which Charles Laughlin pipe
up, "speaking as the only cross-dresser on the panel..." to
which the entire panel and audience laughed heartily. Of course,
the subject was then treated with much more respect as we were
all reminded that both cross-dressing male and female shamans
have both suffered at the hands of people inside and outside of
their own tribe. Most shamanic traditions address androgyny in
one form or another, usually identifying it with its own set of
vast powers. Yet even those cultures often look down upon such
transexual behaviours, typically reacting with prejudice and
violence.

 Another point was made that is relevant to the debate over
sexual differences; that of trauma and its differing
dissociative effects upon men and women. It is generally
accepted that males get angry and externalize their anger where
as females get depressed and internalize their feelings. It
should not surprise us then when we discover that in America,
more men are jailed and more women seek therapy than in any
other country.

 Finally, perhaps the most consternating aspect of the Q&A was
the continual focusing by certain audience members upon the
topic of Out of Body Experiences and other psi phenomena which
seem to imply that human consciousness can move beyond the body.
Particularly, two older gentleman whom I had eavesdropped on
throughout the conference, had repeatedly talked amongst
themselves about their own psi experiments whereby they placed
a set of 3 random numbers atop a wardrobe and challenged any
psychic to astral travel and discern the numbers.

 Many panel members addressed these issues, citing different
examples of psi experiments which lend credence to this very
ability. Michael Grosso went so far as to recount his own
encounter with a particular student's ability to do such, in
this case actually moving an object in his home, apparently
during an OBE. It was around this time that Paul Devereux was
obviously growing weary of such old paradigm thinking, as he had
his head down in frustration. He proceeded to launch into a
perhaps less than technical explanation for why he feels this is
a moot issue. He tried to sum up what had been spoken of
repeatedly throughout the conference and its importance for new
modes of thinking, re-stating the consensus that the human mind
can and does move beyond spacetime and there potentially
interacts with all matter and energy at an informational level -
not on a physical, old paradigm level where the mind LEAVES the
body. "There is no body to leave, therefore it is useless to
continue talking about such matters in terms of Out of Body
Experiences and Astral Travel."

 While I understood exactly what he was trying to say, I also
sympathized with his frustration at trying to get across these
ideas to people who sometimes can not quite grasp the
implications of what has been said. I suppose a better tack
would have been to simply accept that such phenomena as OBEs,
astral travel, remote viewing, clarvoyance, etc. are the old
paradigm ways that humans developed to interact within these
timeless, spaceless realms of Otherworld Reality. Once this is
stated, it should be a little easier to then go on and try to
find new paradigms which better describe the true nature of
these realms. Easier said than done, eh?

 All in all it was perhaps the best start towards actualizing
the new paradigms explicit within the narratives of experiences
of the imaginal that we could have hoped for. I for one do see
an over-arching structure forming from out of these many varied
speakers' presentations.

 We have evidence of human exploration of these Otherworld
Realities dating far back into human evolution, using such
neurocognitive drivers as psychedelics, visionary states and
meditation. We have similar explorations right up to the
present in the form of lucid dream research. From
anthropologists we learn that the information gained within
these excursions into Otherworlds often has value towards our
understanding of the orders within nature. The physicists and
mathematicians tell us these things are possible and we may be
on the verge of understanding the mechanics behind such
phenomena. Philosophers implore us to take this evidence to
heart and to apply it to the institutions which sustain our
civilization. Meanwhile, parapsychologists are helping draw the
maps that will lead us towards a better understanding of psi
phenomena and how it acts as interface between humanity and
these Otherworlds.

 Good job Consciousness Connection! May this set the stage for
a continuing dialogue and exploration of our imaginal realms and
the hopes they bring for a better world. Book me for the next
one!

Afterward

 The following days found me doing the touristy site-seeing
bit, befriending several students residing in the University
youth hostel where I was staying, as well as shopping for boots
and books in the Soho district. I toured the Tower of London,
saw the Family Jewels and the Tower Bridge.

 My new found friends and I spent one night in a club below
Leicester Square dancing to the same crappy music one finds in
clubs back in the States. We wondered home through nearly
deserted streets, past the gay bar that had been bombed a few
nights earlier. Our long walk ended with a late night beer fest
in the youth hostel commons area. The following day I heard
that 7 people had been shot that night in a London club.

 The friendliest of the University students I had gone dancing
with was a tall, thin Belgian (nearly ten years my junior)
named Mike. I spoke to him about American parapolitics
(conspiracy theory) and UFO stories. I told him of his own
country�s dramatic publicized tracking of UFOs with military
aircraft radar. He had no knowledge in any of these areas,
specificly stating he�d never heard about his own country�s UFO
cases. Not that surprising I suppose.

 My tours of the city were limited by time and resources but I
managed to spend exactly the amount of money I took with me. No
more no less. Had I bought those cute UFO/Alien postcards at
the Alien Cafe, which was a stone's throw away from Palace -
literally, I would not have had enough money to take the tube
ride back to Heathrow airport. This tube ride nearly caused me
to miss my flight due to delays along the tracks.

 At one point our subway car stopped above ground. I looked up
and saw a very interesting sight: through a huge window in
someone�s flat I could see two life-size inflated �grey�
aliens. One was blue the other green. There big black
wrap-around eyes stared at me, speaking volumes without
telepathy. Hanging on the wall behind and between them was a
life-size paper cut-out human skeleton, mimicking the aliens
black eyes with a relevance not entirely lost upon my own
exhausted and frustrated frame.

 Finally, the subway car lurched into motion again and managed
to get me to my plane on time. The flight home was pleasant and
uneventful. Much of the time I simply gazed out the airplane
window watching the beautiful roiling contrail from a previous
transatlantic flight which lay on our right side nearly the
entire way back to America. All the while I considered its
snaking trail in light of the current contrail conspiracy
schmaltz making the rounds through the gullible American
psyche. Aaaaaahh yes, back to America and its United States of
Unconsciousness.

Will we ever wake from our evolutionary slumber?

SMiles Lewis






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:47:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:39:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:53:12 -0700


>Hi Kathleen,

>I'm beginning to doubt that those with "closed minds" will ever
>have a sighting, even if a 'FO lands in their driveway. Reality
>is based on our perceptions and if we cannot stretch our minds
>to accept anything beyond what society has told us it's alright
>to believe in, how will we ever perceive a UFO?

>Your point about God is a good one. How can we accept the
>reality of God, who only a few bibical characters claimed to
>have seen (and described as a UFO encounter) and, yet, not
>believe in UFOs who so many around the globe have seen?

>In fact, I rather believe that unless we do stretch our minds a
>great deal, we will never find "proof" of UFOs. Perhaps it's
>time the human race started to grow up and evolve past the five
>senses and take notice of the evidence for other realities.


I'm affraid you seem to be missing the point here. I don't
approve of hoaxing, but this clearly illustrates that the
majority of ufologists don't have the capacity to truely
investigate the UFO phenomenon. Open mindedness has nothing to
do with this issue.

If we really wanted to find out what UFOs were - from undefined
IFOs to ET - then religious words like 'belief' and 'open mind'
should be kept locked away. Ufology will never be a science if
we are not hard noised critics of the 'evidence'. Question and
doubt everything and you might just find some real answers.

Alchemy would still be practised today of science had not
learned those lessons and I would not be typing this out on a
PC!

Keep bashing those rocks together!!!!

Mike Wootten
IUN








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:47:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:24:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:53:12 -0700


>Hi Kathleen,

>I'm beginning to doubt that those with "closed minds" will ever
>have a sighting, even if a 'FO lands in their driveway. Reality
>is based on our perceptions and if we cannot stretch our minds
>to accept anything beyond what society has told us it's alright
>to believe in, how will we ever perceive a UFO?

>Your point about God is a good one. How can we accept the
>reality of God, who only a few bibical characters claimed to
>have seen (and described as a UFO encounter) and, yet, not
>believe in UFOs who so many around the globe have seen?

>In fact, I rather believe that unless we do stretch our minds a
>great deal, we will never find "proof" of UFOs. Perhaps it's
>time the human race started to grow up and evolve past the five
>senses and take notice of the evidence for other realities.


I'm affraid you seem to be missing the point here. I don't
approve of hoaxing, but this clearly illustrates that the
majority of ufologists don't have the capacity to truely
investigate the UFO phenomenon. Open mindedness has nothing to
do with this issue.

If we really wanted to find out what UFOs were - from undefined
IFOs to ET - then religious words like 'belief' and 'open mind'
should be kept locked away. Ufology will never be a science if
we are not hard noised critics of the 'evidence'. Question and
doubt everything and you might just find some real answers.

Alchemy would still be practised today of science had not
learned those lessons and I would not be typing this out on a
PC!

Keep bashing those rocks together!!!!

Mike Wootten
IUN








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:47:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:44:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:53:12 -0700


>Hi Kathleen,

>I'm beginning to doubt that those with "closed minds" will ever
>have a sighting, even if a 'FO lands in their driveway. Reality
>is based on our perceptions and if we cannot stretch our minds
>to accept anything beyond what society has told us it's alright
>to believe in, how will we ever perceive a UFO?

>Your point about God is a good one. How can we accept the
>reality of God, who only a few bibical characters claimed to
>have seen (and described as a UFO encounter) and, yet, not
>believe in UFOs who so many around the globe have seen?

>In fact, I rather believe that unless we do stretch our minds a
>great deal, we will never find "proof" of UFOs. Perhaps it's
>time the human race started to grow up and evolve past the five
>senses and take notice of the evidence for other realities.


I'm affraid you seem to be missing the point here. I don't
approve of hoaxing, but this clearly illustrates that the
majority of ufologists don't have the capacity to truely
investigate the UFO phenomenon. Open mindedness has nothing to
do with this issue.

If we really wanted to find out what UFOs were - from undefined
IFOs to ET - then religious words like 'belief' and 'open mind'
should be kept locked away. Ufology will never be a science if
we are not hard noised critics of the 'evidence'. Question and
doubt everything and you might just find some real answers.

Alchemy would still be practised today of science had not
learned those lessons and I would not be typing this out on a
PC!

Keep bashing those rocks together!!!!

Mike Wootten
IUN








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                           Filer's Files #25 - 99

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:39:15 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:54:14 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #25 - 99


Filer's Files #25 --1999,  MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer,   Mutual UFO Network Eastern Director,
June 25, 1999,  Majorstar@aol.com  (609) 654-0020

AIR VICTORY MUSEUM OWNER DIES IN F-86 PLANE CRASH

On Thursday evening I met with Steve Snyder and his wife about
future plans for the museum.  On Saturday, I'm sorry to report
this great innovator and visionary died while flying his beloved
F-86 Sabre jet during his performance at the South Jersey
Regional Airport.  He was flying low over the runway after
performing some acrobatics and the Korean vintage jet's right
wing dipped and touched the ground.  The aircraft cart-wheeled
into a wooded area and burst into flames.  We lost a fine person
and friend.  I had been trying to convince Steve of the reality
of UFOs for several years.  He seemed to be coming over to
thinking that UFOs just might be real.  He had allowed me to
place an expanding UFO exhibit in the museum.  Steve had
graduated from Georgia Tech has an aeronautical engineer, and
UFOs were tough for him to accept.  Thursday he said, "My
biggest stumbling block to ET is the tremendous distances
between our Earth and other solar systems!"  I attempted to
explain NASA engineer Paul Hill's findings regarding the time
requirements for interstellar travel.  After listening to my
arguments, Steve said, "Lets have a UFO Dance at the museum.
I'll get a model UFO to fly from the center of the floor and
every one will go wild!"  We laughed and agreed to have a UFO
dance at the museum.  Steve was a wonderful guy who invented the
square parachute and piloted aircraft for 7000 hours while
running several companies.  In Steve Snyder's honor, I'm
providing a summary of Paul Hill's concepts, "Unconventional
Flying Objects."  Perhaps Steve can put these concepts to the
test?

INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL: ACCELERATION AND MISSION PROFILE: Most
writers, and physicists too, in estimating the time for
interstellar travel, neglect the effect of the accelerating
portions of the trip on the trip time, making the simplifying
assumption that the vehicle makes the entire trip at constant
velocity.  This is probably done because the requisite equations
are scarce items in the literature... snip. 4.  It is possible
for an interstellar trip to be very short.  The trip from our
nearest neighbor, Alpha Centuri, a triple star system 4.3 light
years away made by acceleration at 140 g to a v/c of 0.9999 is
accomplished from a standing start to a standing finish in 6
weeks.  Snip At the highest speeds considered, the travel time
is not at all proportional to the distance.  For example at 20 g
and v/c=0.9999 we read a distance of 25 light years takes 0.6
years on board, while a distance of 100 light years is covered
in almost a year.  The reason is easy to visualize.  Once the
vehicle is up to speed, vast amounts of additional distance may
be covered during the coast period with but little increase in
time and, obviously, with no increase in additional light year
covered while coasting.

CONCLUSION: I hope I have made it clear that there is an
important distinction to be made between the time experienced by
the space traveler and the time which passes meanwhile on the
home planet and on the planetary destination.  The tremendous
acceleration, speed, and energy capability displayed by UFOs
make them well suited to capitalize on this distinction by the
attainment of greatly reduced on board times realizable by
approaching the speed of light.  Even an approach to 90 percent
of light gets the job done for the nearer stars.  Higher
fractions of light speed give attractive time reductions for
longer trips.  Don't be misled by the countless statements in
the literature that interstellar distances and the speed of
light constitute some kind of barrier to space travel.  There
are only two paths to this conclusion:  Nobody in the universe
has the technology to approach light speed.  Observer time is
significant, and on board time is to be ignored.  Both paths are
false ones.  The confused second view is the more common.  Its
proponents are using the observed time for light to travel as
the shortest possible time for passage.  "Totally false."
Thanks to Paul Hill, "Unconventional Flying Objects."  Pages
268-279 Editor's Note: The sailors who crossed the ocean a
couple hundred years ago and those settlers who crossed the West
in wagon trains would find the trip aboard a fast space ship to
another star system a reasonable time period.  The biggest
problem would be that their friends and relatives would be
unlikely to be alive when they returned, so they might decide to
bring them along.  Speaking of friends, Steve Snyder will be
painfully missed and I send my condolences to his wife Barbara
and two sons.

RHODE ISLAND

WARWICK � MUFON Assistant State Director Janet Bucci writes.  "I
thought you might want to know I am investigating another case.
Friday evening June 11, 1999, at around 11:00 PM a gentleman in
Warwick, was looking out his window at the sky and spotted three
lights acting strangely.  They were gambling about as if playing
and headed toward the ground, whereupon they became one light.
The light shot back up in sky and separated into three lights
again.  This sequence repeated over and over again, while the
gentleman watched for about half-an-hour.  The details are as
yet unknown since the investigation has not yet been started but
thought you'd want to hear that we have a potential sighting in
the works.

NEW JERSEY ORBS AND OTHER ANOMALIES

PARAMUS, NJ -- Vinny Polise writes, "At the present time I have
been experiencing what some in the Ufology and Paranormal Field
call ORBS."  Orbs over the past years have been showing
themselves to certain individuals, such as myself and have
bought themselves to my attention.  What is this phenomenon?  We
are unable to comprehend what they are and where they come from.
In the beginning of my research, around 1990, I started
investing time in the Pine Bush, New York, phenomena better
known as the Lower Hudson Valley Sightings.  Pine Bush is known
for being one of the UFO capitals of the world.  Between 1990
and 1999, I personally witnessed many strange phenomena relating
to UFOs and other dimensional beings.  Photographing became part
of my research and would indeed prove to be a monumental
improvement in what we believe to be the reality of another
dimension.  Strange anomalies would appear on my photos and
negatives.  Whether it be strange light streaks, Orbs,
Paranormal Mist, or just plain ghostly shadows, I knew there was
something extremely strange going on in the area.  Time went on
and these phenomena would still be registering on all types of
camera equipment, no matter how inexpensive the camera would
still register these images.  TV shows such as, Sightings, A&E,
The Learning Channel, and so on have all been to the Pine Bush
area.  Sightings actually video taped a flying Manta or V shaped
craft in the late 80's along with other phenomena.  This
phenomenon is ongoing.  What I have found is that the area is
not critical, but the person and his attraction to the phenomena
are.  That's right, the phenomena from my perspective is
everywhere, but there is one catch.  This phenomena is attracted
to certain individuals.  The ability to film these images and
anomalies come from within the individual.  During the past two
years, the Pine Bush activity has followed me home to Paramus,
New Jersey.  This is a border town close to New York.  It is a
quiet little community where I found an open area and a
semi-dense wooded area close to my home.  I have been filming
there for over a year.  The results have been phenomenal.   The
phenomenon of the "Orbs" is one "we" may or may not find an
answer too.  There are a lot of single people doing individual
studies on this "orb" concept and phenomena.  Basic studies done
by myself have shown me that "orbs" have an intelligence, are
able to move at rapid speeds, disappear, appear, change color,
shape, and size all in the blink of an eye.  Usually you need
the camera to pick them up but sometimes they are visible to the
naked eye.  Orbs tend to be in another dimensional level, but
have the ability to interchange dimensions.  I think within time
we may one day be able to communicate with other dimensional
worlds and their inhabitants.  Orbs are not harmful, and seem to
only be as curious of us as we are of them. I have found that a
simple "asking" will entice these orbs to come closer to the
individual filming them, as you can see in the photos.  There
have been times that I have been so close I could have actually
grabbed one of them, but they have an ability to maneuver and
disappear.  What I am looking for with these orbs, is contact on
a conscious level, to learn from them, and possibly getting a
glimpse of their reality!  Thanks to: Vinny Polise. See photos
at: The Pine Bush Vortex,
(http://members.aol.com/ufocontat/pinebush/).

FLORIDA

LOXAHOCHE -- Endrick Torres a 19 year old  student reported to
BUFOD that he saw a UFO near Wellington on June 20, 1999.  Two
of my relatives and several neighbors spotted something in the
sky at 10:30 PM.. It was very bright but not moving.  At first
we thought it was a star or a plane, but I have never seen a
star not blinking and a plane not moving.  I grabbed a pair of
binoculars to get a better view.  It was a strange object with
three vertical lights close to each other that from afar, looked
like one glow.  It stayed like this for a half an hour, so we
started filming.  It kept on like this for the remainder of the
tape until the video ended.  When  the camera stopped filming,
the object started moving and changing shape.  It went from a
vertical line to an oval shape then to an ellipse and back.
The top light changed from white to red and morphed that way.
This went on for 30 minutes until 12:00 AM, when we lost sight
of it to the west.  It was hovering towards the bell glade area.
We watched the video and everything came out pretty good.  There
were times when it was difficult to see because my hand was
moving but the good shots are unmistakable.  The hovering craft
made no noise and had many lights that changed shape and color
at an estimated 800 feet.  Thanks to BUFOD' Ben Field -
ben@abcfield.force9.co.uk. and http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk

TEXAS

LAKE LEWISVILLE � Last week, I reported a June 6, 1999, sighting
of three large maneuvering lights.  The correct date is June 9,
1999.  Amy writes, "What is interesting is that I saw this
'splitting' UFO almost exactly two years to the day.  On June 7,
1997,  I saw a huge moonlike UFO that hovered in the field
behind my house."  All hell seemed to break loose that month.  I
got some of it on video tape!  It changed my life so much that I
went from ignoring general UFO reports to reading every UFO
report I could get my hands on for the last two years.  I came
across some amazing discoveries in my studies (well, amazing to
me).  Just the other night I saw a bright flash of light that
lit up the sky.  Then a few seconds later all the power went out
in my house leaving me staring at a blank computer screen in
total darkness.  Power seemed to be out on the entire block, but
who can tell in these small towns where they roll up the streets
at 8:00 PM? (grin).  The power came back on within 5 minutes.
Something mighty weird seems to be going on back there. I've
heard the area where I saw the moonlike UFO is owned by the Army
Corps of Engineers.  I've seen many strange beams of light
coming from the ground all over the place yet there is nothing
out there but open fields and small houses for miles.  Guess
it's time to take a hike. <grin>  Only way I know to access the
area is dirt bike or on foot.  Thanks to  Amy Hebert
-yelorose@swbell.net

WASHINGTON

LONGVIEW -- I met with Peter Davenport concerning updates on the
February 25, elk abduction in Washington.  Apparently, more
witnesses were interviewed by the MUFON investigator Bob
Fairfax.  The witnesses who are of Mexican descent were planting
seedlings on the side of a mountain.  They would have been
plainly visible from the air.  A small craft roughly in the
shape of the heal of a shoe, (an elongated disc with the back
cut off), flew over and picked up a running elk.  The fourteen
forestry workers were all frightened by the UFO abduction of the
elk and remained close together for the rest of the day.  During
the investigation an elk was later found that might have been
involved in the abductions.  The elk had no visible signs of
injury but had ticks still embedded in the elk's neck.  Both the
ticks and the elk were dead.  When an animal dies the ticks
quickly leave because the temperature lowers and the blood flow
stops.  The Game and Wildlife officer says, there have been hard
conditions this year for animals and most are undernourished and
many have starved.  The craft was 10 to 12 feet long and only
slightly larger than the elk.  Several witnesses felt the UFO
appeared to grow larger to accommodate the elk.  Thanks to Peter
Davenport. Editors Note: It is very unusual for UFOs to attempt
to pick up animals in broad daylight in front of 14 witnesses.
The UFO's aircrew may also have problems in obtaining food.

UTAH

MIDVALE -- Tim Hagemeister Director NACOMM reports a Sunday,
June 20, 1999, sighting at 4:10 to 4:20 PM of three silver round
objects.  One object particularly convinced me what I was seeing
was not anything I have ever seen before.  Its movement was
sharp and at one point not moving at all for several minutes.
We're looking to find any other reports for same area.  This is
an initial sighting report and more detailed report will follow
in the coming days.  Thanks to Tim Hagemeister Director  NACOMM
www.nacomm.org

CHILE

COCHRANE -- Luis C. Sanchez Perry Chilean Director Skywatch
International reports that on June 20, 1999, a married couple
that live on Chilean military land reported a UFO sighting.
Last year a 400 meter triangular UFO was seen in this same area.
The couple report three times a day from Predio Backer to the
Coihaique military base, where the following report was
obtained.  On Sunday night at 8:30 PM, they saw five luminous
objects fly over their house in a linear formation (O O O O O).
They were three meters apart heading south.  About 300 meters
from the house they stopped.  Four of the objects merged into
one lighting up the entire sky.  The fifth object remained
static.  Both of the objects started moving very slowly from
their position to a nearby hill called "La Meceta."  Once over
the hill, the five objects separated in all directions.  They
gathered again in a line formation (O O O O O) and left heading
for the city of Punta Arenas.  The sky was clear and the entire
sighting lasted about 14 minutes.  During the sighting, they
tried to radio the police in Cochrane, but the radios failed to
function until the UFO's departed.  Thanks to military officer
Rodrigo Bravo from Coihaique base who ordered that this report
be released.  This is the first official case as far as I know
where a UFO sighting is officially registered in the Daily Event
Book and released to the public.  In normal circumstances this
sighting would not be registered.  But Rodrigo Bravo is a good
friend of mine and he is very interested in UFO's.  So he
thought it was time for the military take a more serious and
opened attitude about UFOs.  Let hope it works.

COIHAIQUE -- During May numerous military personnel reported UFO
sightings in the middle of military exercises.   1) Two lights
(red and orange) were seen going from the ground to the sky
(vertically), one after the other at Las Vandurrias 24
kilometers east of Coihaique at 8:30 PM.   2)  Small star like
object moving erratically (up, down and sideways) with flashes
of light that illuminated all the sky. This lasted a few
minutes.  After about five minutes it happened again but on the
opposite side of the sky.   3)  Many solders saw a ball of
orange light come horizontally out of "Cerro Piramide" without a
tail.

UFO FLIES NEAR A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER -- On May 23, 1999, a UFO
was witnessed by the flight crew and passengers for thirty
minutes.  The sighting started over Puerto Natales, and the
commander invited some passengers to the cabin to have a better
view of the UFO.  The Commander then contacted the control tower
that also had a visual contact with the UFO and it's movements.
All the radio contact between the aircraft and control tower was
recorded on tape.  There was no radar contact with the UFO.  The
Flight number and pilot's name are being withheld.  This case is
being investigated by the UFO group AION. (aion@chilesat.net)
Thanks to Luis C. Sanchez Perry Chilean Director Skywatch Int.

BELGIUM TRIANGLES

Aviation  enthusiast  Eric Morris states: "On Saturday 12th
June, I attended the Woodford Airshow held at British Aerospace,
Woodford, Cheshire.  At approximately 12:45 PM I made my way
over to a group of pilots who were talking to the public and
giving stickers out to enthusiasts.  I managed to get into
conversation with two of these men, one the pilot of a Royal
Netherlands Air Force aircraft and the other an F-16 pilot.
After a few minutes I asked them candidly about the 'Belgian UFO
incidents' of 1989/90 and without any hint of a lie the told me
that firstly, they were knowledgeable about the case.  Secondly,
they knew the name of Colonel Wilfred de Brouwer who was most
closely associated with the case at the time -- from an official
point of view.  The pilot laughed when asked about triangular
'UFOs' and stated that they were/are not UFOs as such but
classified aircraft.  I feigned surprise and said that the press
and public thought differently.  This encouraged them to be a
little more forthcoming and they added that 'an experimental
aircraft' had been involved and had developed problems.  The men
stated that knowledge of this incident was not exactly limited
to Belgium and that Dutch, UK and German radars were affected by
this and that some tracks were made.  In the UK radar stations
on the East coast had, apparently, picked the aircraft up.  They
argued that the jet fighters were tasked to track the
experimental aircraft in the air for some reason.  They knew the
Belgian pilots involved.  They were adamant that this was not a
UFO sighting and having had conversations with other NATO pilots
had discovered that NATO Air Forces were 'in the know.'
Official statements, of the type put out by de Brouwer, were
little more than a smokescreen to hide the facts.  The actual
craft in question was, as far as they knew, of European design
and they didn't know about any possible US involvement.  America
was not mentioned in this respect.  They also had heard about
cover-ups of incidents at RAF Boscombe Down.  The aircraft in
question were F-16's Serial J-256, J-259, attached to R.
Netherlands AF Squadron 299, 301, 311."  I am prepared to make a
statement in front of a Solicitor in the form of an affidavit if
required.  This statement if true to the best of my recollection
and for further information I can be contacted as follows; Eric
Morris, 78 Greenall Rd, Northwich, Cheshire CW9 5RN.  Tel
(01606) 330567.  Tim Matthews comments;  Although this is a
remarkable account some of the facts fit what we know.  Derek
Sheffield's "UFO - A Deadly Concealment" indicates that the MOD
(UK) knew all about it and that North Atlantic Ground Defence
Environment (NADGE) radar picked the aircraft up.  Importantly,
he states that anything reported to one country's radar would
necessarily be passed on to the rest in the loop.  He also
indicates there was an official cover-up and it is remarkable to
note how Ufolgists who believe in a UFO cover-up treat the
Belgian military as a different and truthful entity, when
claiming there is a Covert Agenda of UFO cover-ups at the
highest levels of power.  Thanks to Tim M. matthews@zetnet.co.uk
Editor's Note:  Our government's know which UFO reports are real
and those that are not.  We gain little by pushing reports that
may not be true.  Certainly, UFOs could have been involved, but
within NATO military circles this version of the report is
considered true.

RUSSIA

ROSTOV -- Anatoly Kutovoy reports I have received some details
regarding the UFO  from one fellow from Rostov in the Northern
Caucasus.  The UFO was filmed by Liudmila Goryacheva, a
university student, her address is known.  Also Moscow TV
evening program 'Vzgliad' (translated as 'Look') interviewed two
of the witnesses.  The girls told what they had seen.  There was
also a report about the UFO on one of Rostov's local radio
stations.  The local newspaper "Evening Rostov" has also
published an article.  The UFO was sighted to the west (or
West-North-West), 25 degrees above horizon.  The events
continued for about a month.  A Rostov university student is
trying to investigate but he does not have much time for
investigation.  Best regards,  Anatoly Kutovoy

MIB MOVIE MAY HIDE UFO

I have possible UFO sighting.  During the movie, Men In Black
(M.I.B.) there is a strange white dot that slowly moves across
the sky.  This occurs during the seen where the bug takes the
doctor from the morgue to the space ship that is disguised as a
water tower.  This happens before the bug climbs the ladder to
the ship.  This is just one of the sightings. Thanks to Chris:
kirk.stauss@teleweb.net

MUFON CONFERENCE: July 2-4, 30th Annual MUFON 1999 International
UFO Symposium at Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel in Arlington,
Virginia.  E-mail mufonhq@aol.com for details.

KECKSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA UFO CRASH DOCUMENTARY

Kecksburg UFO crash/retrieval Video Documentary.  Most readers
are familiar with the Roswell event, but many are unaware that a
similar incident occurred in Pennsylvania in 1965, near a small
rural community called Kecksburg.  Veteran UFO researcher Stan
Gordon, has been gathering information on this case for many
years, and has produced a studio made 92 minute video called
"Kecksburg The Untold Story."  This production recently won the
1998 EBE film award for the Best Historical UFO Documentary.
The video contains interviews with many people who have
information about the case including witnesses who saw the
object in the sky.  Also with those who say they came across a
large metallic acorn shaped object with strange markings,
partially buried in the ground, before the military arrived on
the scene.  Among those interviewed are reporters who were on
location that night, a witness who says he saw the odd acorn
shaped object on the back of an army flatbed tractor trailer
truck, and civilians who claim they were confronted by armed
military personnel.  For the first time, some witnesses speak
out on camera discussing information that suggests that there
could have been a cover-up to withhold the truth about what
occurred near Kecksburg.  A startling revelation is revealed
here from a witness, who says he saw a body in the same building
with the Kecksburg object, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
only days after it was delivered there.  Also contained in the
documentary are some of the actual audio excerpts from the WHJB
radio special called "Object in the woods," which was broadcast
soon after the incident in a "cut and edited version."  To order
your copy of "Kecksburg The Untold Story" send a check or money
order to: Stan Gordon Productions, P.O. Box 936, Greensburg, PA
15601. Attention: Dept. GF.  The cost of the tape including
shipping and handling is $35.90.  For PA residents the cost
including tax, S&H is $38.05.  For PA residents living in
Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties the total cost is $38.41.
For more information, check out Stan's updated Website at
www.westol.com/~paufo

MUFON JOURNAL For more detailed investigative reports subscribe
by writing to 103 Oldtowne Road, Sequin, TX 78155-4099 or E-mail
Mufon@aol.com.  Filer's Files Copyright 1999 by George A. Filer,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post items from the Files on
their Websites provided that they credit the newsletter and its
editor by name and list the date of issue that the item
appeared.  Send your letters to me at Majorstar@aol.com.  If you





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:41:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:59:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:47:26 +0100
>Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:24:14 -0400
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

>>From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:53:12 -0700

Previously, Teri has offered:

>>I'm beginning to doubt that those with "closed minds" will ever
>>have a sighting, even if a 'FO lands in their driveway. Reality
>>is based on our perceptions and if we cannot stretch our minds
>>to accept anything beyond what society has told us it's alright
>>to believe in, how will we ever perceive a UFO?

Mike replied:

>I'm affraid you seem to be missing the point here. I don't
>approve of hoaxing, but this clearly illustrates that the
>majority of ufologists don't have the capacity to truely
>investigate the UFO phenomenon. Open mindedness has nothing to
>do with this issue.
>
>If we really wanted to find out what UFOs were - from undefined
>IFOs to ET - then religious words like 'belief' and 'open mind'
>should be kept locked away. Ufology will never be a science if
>we are not hard noised critics of the 'evidence'. Question and
>doubt everything and you might just find some real answers.
>
>Alchemy would still be practised today of science had not
>learned those lessons and I would not be typing this out on a
>PC!

Hi, Mike.

You mentioned alchemy, science and religion. Alchemy became a
science only after the practice of experimentation and
observation was combined with copious note keeping to prevent
repetition of errors and failed results. But, make no mistake,
there were many occasions where someone simply thought, "What if
I mixed this with this?" and came up with success, sometimes on
the first try! Science today is not much different. In this
fashion, I believe that many of the greatest advances in science
came as a result of a leap of faith; someone in a lab or
workshop simply wondering "What if...?"

Thus the fine line between religion and science dissappears, if
only for a moment. But it is within this moment that man shines
the brightest as he demonstrates the ability to predict beyond
what is predictable; to recognize the unrecognizable.

Remember, Thomas Edison had a minimal grade school education.
Henry Ford was illiterate and signed his name with an 'X".
DeForrest was credited with "inventing" the amplification tube
but could not explain how it worked in court when challenged
over his patent. These are a few examples of people that used
intuition as much as anything to explore the world around them.
The "evidence" they studied was invisible to their
contemporaries as it could only be seen through the eyes of
someone with an open mind and a belief in the impossible.

Therefore, with all due respect, I think it is you that's
missing the point. The "evidence" you suggest we should be hard
nosed critics of simply does not exist...yet. This is not to say
that it isn't right before our very eyes; indeed, it may very
well be. However, since we really don't have a clue what we are
looking for there's a very good chance that we might overlook it
unless we drop our preconceived notions of what UFO's and ET's
are supposed to "be".

I understand your frustration at the apparent "guessing game"
that seems to invite anyone calling themselves a "UFO
researcher". However, discoveries are not the sole property of
the scientific elite. On the contrary, the average Joe on the
street may fare better than the ridgidly disciplined scientist
when it comes to asking "What if...?" Since the average person
hasn't been taught about what can't be possible, he or she is
more likely to recognize what is possible or, more importantly,
what is actually happening in front of their very eyes.

BTW, the concept of the "PC" was initially considered foolish by
virtually everyone in the computer industry. It took a few
people asking "What if...?" to make it a reality.

Take care,

Roger Evans





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                        Month-Long Sightings In Iran?

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 05:32:21 GMT
Fwd Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:15:18 -0400
Subject: Month-Long Sightings In Iran?


Source: alt.alien.visitors

Stig

***

From: "news" <bihrf@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: sighting
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:32:57 +1000
Organization: The University of Newcastle


People in the south east of Iran (between end of May and 20th of
June 99) were witnessed a purple light in the sky for about a
month every night. There was no explanation for such a event and
the light went away without any sign.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                                Doug & Dave?

From: John Gilbert <john@greendome.force9.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:56:44 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:30:57 -0400
Subject: Doug & Dave?


>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 03:37:55 +0200 (MET DST)
>Subject: 'London Evening Standard' On Rockefeller
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>In 1992, two Southampton men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley,
>confessed to making corn circles: every summer night for 20
>years. Their method was simple: rakes and planks of wood to
>bash down the crop, ropes to guide them to a perfect circle,
>loops of wire on hats to guide straight lines.

Just to take-off on a different thread. Does anyone here belive
that these two people actualy ever made a single crop circle?
Not only have they failed to make one with anyone watching, but
they claim to have made perfect straight lines with a loop of
wire attached to the brim of a baseball hat. Now think about it,
that wouldn't actually work.

John.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: John Gilbert <john@greendome.force9.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:56:44 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:29:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 03:37:55 +0200 (MET DST)
>Subject: 'London Evening Standard' On Rockefeller
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>In 1992, two Southampton men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley,
>confessed to making corn circles: every summer night for 20
>years. Their method was simple: rakes and planks of wood to
>bash down the crop, ropes to guide them to a perfect circle,
>loops of wire on hats to guide straight lines.

Just to take-off on a different thread. Does anyone here belive
that these two people actualy ever made a single crop circle?
Not only have they failed to make one with anyone watching, but
they claim to have made perfect straight lines with a loop of
wire attached to the brim of a baseball hat. Now think about it,
that wouldn't actually work.

John.











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 07:46:25 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:48:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:47:26 +0100

>>From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:53:12 -0700

>>Hi Kathleen,

>>I'm beginning to doubt that those with "closed minds" will ever
>>have a sighting, even if a 'FO lands in their driveway. Reality
>>is based on our perceptions and if we cannot stretch our minds
>>to accept anything beyond what society has told us it's alright
>>to believe in, how will we ever perceive a UFO?

>>Your point about God is a good one. How can we accept the
>>reality of God, who only a few bibical characters claimed to
>>have seen (and described as a UFO encounter) and, yet, not
>>believe in UFOs who so many around the globe have seen?

>>In fact, I rather believe that unless we do stretch our minds a
>>great deal, we will never find "proof" of UFOs. Perhaps it's
>>time the human race started to grow up and evolve past the five
>>senses and take notice of the evidence for other realities.

>I'm affraid you seem to be missing the point here. I don't
>approve of hoaxing, but this clearly illustrates that the
>majority of ufologists don't have the capacity to truely
>investigate the UFO phenomenon. Open mindedness has nothing to
>do with this issue.

>If we really wanted to find out what UFOs were - from undefined
>IFOs to ET - then religious words like 'belief' and 'open mind'
>should be kept locked away. Ufology will never be a science if
>we are not hard noised critics of the 'evidence'. Question and
>doubt everything and you might just find some real answers.

>Alchemy would still be practised today of science had not
>learned those lessons and I would not be typing this out on a
>PC!

>Keep bashing those rocks together!!!!


Dear Mike,

Friend, I'll stand by what I wrote. Einstein said: "Imagination
is more important than knowledge." Science is held back by old
beliefs, by the lack of leaps of the imagination. If one rigidly
holds to old paradigms, new ones will remain hidden. UFOs have
demonstrated that our knowledge of physics is limited--that we
have much more to learn. Certainly you don't believe that
science has reached its zenith, that we know all there is to
know. In order to discover new truths, we have to stretch our
minds, to reach out further than we have, which means letting go
of old beliefs that clog our ability to perceive new truths.
Open-mindeness has everything to do with science.


"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to
give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to
whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
--T. H. Huxley

Sincerely,
Teri Edgar







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:48:01 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:51:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:54:48 -0400

>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:36:54 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]

>>and remember that these sorts of claims (Satanic and abduction)
>>can wreck people's lives.

>Documentation, please, on how abduction claims have wrecked
>lives.

>Anecdotes not welcome, since they can easily be countered with
>situations I've personally observed, in which people pulled
>themselves together by coming to terms with their reported
>abduction experiences.

>Let's have some statistical data. What proportion of abductees
>have wrecked their lives by thinking they've been abducted?


Oh, come on, is this serious? Statistical data on wrecked lives?
No anecdotes (i.e. actual examples of wrecked lives)? I can
assure you that lives have been wrecked by claims of Satanic
Ritual Abuse - anecdotes only, sorry, as unfortunately for some
peculiar reason no-one seems to be collecting percentages of
"wrecked lives" as opposed to "slightly concerned lives",
"rather worried lives", or "terribly upset lives". Maybe the
Office of Population and Statistics could put a question in
their 2001 Census.

--
John Rimmer
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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                    UFO Sighting & Mag Detector Activity?

From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:41:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:29:57 -0400
Subject: UFO Sighting & Mag Detector Activity?



Report of UFO Sighting With Possible Activation of Magnetic
Detector in Pennsylvania

From Stan Gordon.

Report UFO sightings and other phenomena in PA (24 hours a day)
724-838-7768 Stan's UFO Anomalies Zone Website:
www.westol.com/~paufo


The following report is from UFO researcher Jim Brown of
Smithfield, Pa.  Jim has been an associate of mine for many
years, and with his extensive electronics background has built
an elaborate magnetic anomaly detector (besides many other
devices) in his home. For more information on Jim's UFO research
and his other projects, check out his website at:
http://www.hhs.net/jbrown/



Magnetic Anomaly Detector Activation Report  --J. Brown

The Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) alarm at my residence was
activated at 0108 hrs. 27 April, 1999. On activation, I first
checked realtime readings on the unit and confirmed they were
outside baseline, indicating a valid anomalous condition. Within
30 seconds of the alarm activation, I went outside and began
observations.

Conditions were high altitude broken clouds and haze.
Temperature 45 degrees F. Winds were calm. The moon was high in
the sky, but was somewhat obscured by the haze. Mars and only a
few of the brightest stars were visible. I was not able to see
or hear anything out of the ordinary. I continued to observe for
about 20 minutes without results. (2 aircraft were seen at high
altitude over this span of time, these likely were commercial
aviation. This is not uncommon at this location.)

I went back inside and saved the data from the MAD. By this
time, the system had established its new baseline level. I
cleared the circular buffer, saved data to disk, reset the
alarm, and the system was back in its scan mode.

As I write this report, (0830 hrs. 27 April), there have been no
additional alarms reported.


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


Additional Report of Object Sighted by Witnesses

(This report was received 18 May regarding the above sighting
along the power line which runs 800 feet behind my residence.
The sighting ocurred about 3 miles east of my location on
Chestnut Ridge, 27 April at about 0100 hrs, or approx 8 minutes
prior to the activation of the MAD. Data indicates the two
events may be related. What follows is an excerpt of the
narrative portion of the report currently under investigation.
Names are withheld at the request of witnesses.)

... Me and ( ) were parked along Skyline Drive under the power
line by Pondfield. About 1 (o'clock), I saw what looked like a
star over toward Elliotsville. There wasn't one there a minute
before. We watched it and it looked like it was moving slowly
toward us. We thought this was strange, but it was probably just
a plane. We didn't pay much attention to it for a couple
minutes. Next time I looked out I could see it was no plane. I
could see it was a bright circle of light sort of like a
doughnut. Where the hole was it was glowing a blue color. It was
over the power line coming toward us from the east.

It looked like a doughnut glowing white with the blue glow in
the center. As it went over the car, i heard a humming sound
that sort of went through the car. ( ) said she could hear a
whistle, but I didn't hear that. At the time I felt like I was
falling. I lost my sense of direction and felt dizzy. ( ) said
she just felt something evil was in the car but I didn't. This
lasted a couple minutes or so. The light passed over the car and
kept going down the mountain toward Uniontown. It disappeared
behind the trees. We just sat there and talked about this for a
half hour, then I took ( ) home. We wanted to report this, but
didn't know who to call. ... (The narrative continues with
personal info.)


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

6 June, 1999 Sound duplicated under Test Conditions.

A test setup using 3 audio generators, gating control, and a
mixer was configured to allow each witness to attempt to
duplicate the sound they heard. I interviewed each separately,
and was present to provide advise on the use of the equipment,
not the settings themselves. The witnesses had control over
parameters and adjusted the setup as they felt was the the most
accurate representation of the sounds heard.

In summary, there were slight discrepancies in the setup, but
only to the extent one would expect. One set up was 92 hertz,
the other 112. Both added a pulsating sound to the signal, and
both said it varied slightly in pulse rate, one said from 8 - 12
pps, the other from 9 - 16. One witness also added a high
frequency component, (the whistle reported previously) at 13
khz. The witness who does not report hearing the whistle does
say he has a hearing impairment, and a simple test I performed
here using one of the generators confirms he cannot hear above
4.5 khz in one ear and 6 khz in the other.

A point of note, the pulse rate superimposed on the magnetic
wave from the MAD unit falls within the range both witnesses
reported. When the original magnetic source signal is converted
to a bit mapped graphic and displayed, the signal contains an 88
to 94 hertz component pulsating at between 8 to 14 pps.  The
absence of the high frequency component reported cannot be used
conclusively since, due to the sample rate of the MAD, this is
well above the ability of the instrument to record. Sample rate
is approx. 350 to 400 per second. In conclusion, the
similarities between the sound generated by the test and the
actual magnetic field recorded by the MAD appear to more than
coincidence, however the source of the magnetic disturbance is
still under investigation.  To date, no conclusive evidence has
been uncovered.

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

25 June, 1999  Follow up contact of both witnesses.

Neither report any subsequent contacts or any new recollections
about their original sighting.  Both are sticking with the
report as they presented it originally.  There has been no
additional activation of the MAD system as of this date.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:58:46 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:33:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:45:18 -0500


>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:18:34 -0400

>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:55:56 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net

  <snips>

>Hi Greg, Kevin, etc.

>First, congrats again to 'Doc Kev' on his acadmemic
>accomplishment. As an aside- kevin, may I ask what your
>dissertation was on? Just curious if you were at all able to
>bring in the UFO stuff into your work, even in an indirect
>manner.

Tim, All -

Again, thanks. My dissertation was called "The Influence of
Preexisting Belief in UFOs on the Identification of Ambiguous
Astronomical and Meteorological Stimuli." The point was not to
determine if UFOs were extraterrestrial or some other phenomena
but to study the influence of belief structure on the
identification of somewhat obscure objects.

I had hoped to do something with sleep paralysis and alien
abductions, but couldn't get the review committee to go along
with that. This was sort of a compromise.

KRandle, Ph.D.
www.randlereport.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                      Re: Month-Long Sightings In Iran?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:13:40 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:38:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Month-Long Sightings In Iran?


>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Month-Long Sightings In Iran?
>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 05:32:21 GMT

>Source: alt.alien.visitors

>Stig

>***

>From: "news" <bihrf@yahoo.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
>Subject: sighting
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:32:57 +1000
>Organization: The University of Newcastle

>People in the south east of Iran (between end of May and 20th of
>June 99) were witnessed a purple light in the sky for about a
>month every night. There was no explanation for such a event and
>the light went away without any sign.


Dear Stig:

Maybe that's why some people have so few reports from the Middle
East.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:20:30 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:41:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: John Gilbert <john@greendome.force9.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Doug & Dave?
>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:56:44 +0100

>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>>Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 03:37:55 +0200 (MET DST)
>>Subject: 'London Evening Standard' On Rockefeller
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>In 1992, two Southampton men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley,
>>confessed to making corn circles: every summer night for 20
>>years. Their method was simple: rakes and planks of wood to
>>bash down the crop, ropes to guide them to a perfect circle,
>>loops of wire on hats to guide straight lines.

>Just to take-off on a different thread. Does anyone here belive
>that these two people actualy ever made a single crop circle?
>Not only have they failed to make one with anyone watching, but
>they claim to have made perfect straight lines with a loop of
>wire attached to the brim of a baseball hat. Now think about it,
>that wouldn't actually work.

Dear Mr Gilbert:

Somehow, I have difficulty seeing two fellows, late from some
pub, sucessfully oiling a pair of roller skates -- let alone
hoaxing a decent crop circle.

It sounds more like a gang of four ( or six or eight ) all of
whom have agreed on some agenda of humor or whatever.

In any case, I thing these matters belong on some "cereology"
page or discussion group.

I cannot find a link to ufology outside of the predictable
failings of the human specie

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                          UFO Shows on TLC Tonight

From: Dave Pengilly - UFO*BC <david_pengilly@dccnet.com>
Date: 26 Jun 1999 19:30:29 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:44:43 -0400
Subject: UFO Shows on TLC Tonight


TLC Presents: A Night of UFOs
Sunday, June 27, 1999

1) UFOs: 50 Years of Denial
   5 and 8 p.m. PDT

2) UFOs Uncovered: Are Aliens Here?
   6 and 9 p.m. PDT

3) UFOs Uncovered: Dark Secrets
   7 and 10 p.m. PDT

***********************************************************


Dave Pengilly
dave@ufobc.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: KAnder6444@aol.com
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:17:50 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:48:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:47:26 +0100

>Open mindedness has nothing to  do with this issue.

>If we really wanted to find out what UFOs were - from undefined
>IFOs to ET - then religious words like 'belief' and 'open mind'
>should be kept locked away. Ufology will never be a science if
>we are not hard noised critics of the 'evidence'. Question and
>doubt everything and you might just find some real answers.

Mike I have to disagree with you. (Nice messages Teri and Roger)

This is the first time I heard that "open mind" or "belief" was
a religious term.

I have a "belief"  in my ability at work to be a number one
sales person. If I didn't -- I might not sell anything. Selling
has nothing to do with having a great product, its about
"believing" and "attitude". And this is not religion, this is
American corporate business.

Evidence? Do we have hard nose facts that Einstein  is right. No
I don't think so, he's got just a "theory".  I never would have
married once if I did not have "faith". The hard nose statistics
would have called me a gamble at 50% failure rate. I was.

Faith? I am glad Queen Isabella had "faith" in Columbus for
after all most people considered him a mad man. I wouldn't have
moved to Seattle in 1990 from L.A. had I not had "faith"  I
could find a better life here. I had no guarantees. Most of us
never do in everything we do in life.

Scientist? Who do we know today is a scientist of ufology? No
one actually. Because some people might have degrees in this or
that does not mean they have the answers. Is Stan or John Mack
or Steven Greer a scientist?

Joe Firmage bills himself as a scientist. He does not have a
degree. He has money, he has intelligence but he has no degree
in any science field/business/arts/etc. Technically speaking he
is a scientist for if you look it up in the dictionary it says a
scientist is a person who studies science. So we all are
scientist for that matter.

I think we are finding today, Mike, that everything in life is a
theory. Who are we? Do we really know? Is your life and the
internet real?  Are our dreams maybe the reallity? What is
reality anyway? If we don't keep an open mind we may never
learn. Tunnel vision is the worst enemy to learning and
evolving.


Kathleen Andersen
Seattle









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: neil morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:58:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:53:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: John Gilbert <john@greendome.force9.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Doug & Dave?
>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:56:44 +0100

>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>>Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 03:37:55 +0200 (MET DST)
>>Subject: 'London Evening Standard' On Rockefeller
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>In 1992, two Southampton men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley,
>>confessed to making corn circles: every summer night for 20
>>years. Their method was simple: rakes and planks of wood to
>>bash down the crop, ropes to guide them to a perfect circle,
>>loops of wire on hats to guide straight lines.

>Just to take-off on a different thread. Does anyone here belive
>that these two people actualy ever made a single crop circle?
>Not only have they failed to make one with anyone watching, but
>they claim to have made perfect straight lines with a loop of
>wire attached to the brim of a baseball hat. Now think about it,
>that wouldn't actually work.

>John.

John and List,

A couple of months back here in the UK a BBC team, I think it
was from the "Country File" program at BBC Bristol, challenged
Doug and Dave + their team of helpers to produce a "circle"
under real life circumstances out in the fields at night. They
_did_ produce a circle/design at night and with hords of circle
watchers in the vacinity, even though the camera team was a bit
of a dead givaway.

I don't think it really _proved_ anything in the end though, other
than, yes the hoaxers _can_ "do it" at night and under the eyes of
the watchers.

Neil.

-------------------------------------------------------
                     Neil Morris@Home.

Email:             Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk

Web Site:    Roswell - Alien Autopsy - The Fort Worth Photographs
                  http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:14:56 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:55:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: John Gilbert <john@greendome.force9.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Doug & Dave?
>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:56:44 +0100

>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>>Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 03:37:55 +0200 (MET DST)
>>Subject: 'London Evening Standard' On Rockefeller
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>In 1992, two Southampton men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley,
>>confessed to making corn circles: every summer night for 20
>>years. Their method was simple: rakes and planks of wood to
>>bash down the crop, ropes to guide them to a perfect circle,
>>loops of wire on hats to guide straight lines.

>Just to take-off on a different thread. Does anyone here belive
>that these two people actualy ever made a single crop circle?
>Not only have they failed to make one with anyone watching, but
>they claim to have made perfect straight lines with a loop of
>wire attached to the brim of a baseball hat. Now think about it,
>that wouldn't actually work.


Hi all,

I've just joined the list and I must say I'm impressed looking
back over the archives at some of the thought provoking
conversations.

As far as I'm concerned John, if Doug and Dave had created so
many crop circles it would have been done by Doug Dave & Co.
Surly two guy's on their own couldn't have achieved so much.

I would also like to know how these two old Southampton men knew
how to gain access to the world media.

You're quite right about the 'ol loop on a baseball cap trick,
you could walk a wavy line and still keep the church roof in
view.

Of course there are hoaxers and some of them are quite good at
what they do but this poses another question. If Doug and Dave
were sponsored in order to stop the hordes from trampling over
the evidence why not choose someone who can make a convincing
circle instead of these two who probably couldn't write their
names in the snow.

Dave.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                          New Project 1947 Web Site

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 09:09:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 09:09:13 -0400
Subject: New Project 1947 Web Site




From: Moderator, UFO Updates - Toronto

For those subscribers who really want to dig below
the surface of UFO phenomena, John Stepkowski has
re-established the Poject 1947 web site at:


http://www.project1947.com/

Nicely done John. I know that you've been through
some trying digital times recently and the site
is a substantial asset to serious research.

Errol






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

              Joseph Trainor and UFO ROUNDUP - Mystery Solved!

From: John Hayes <jhayes@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 12:58:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 09:58:15 -0400
Subject: Joseph Trainor and UFO ROUNDUP - Mystery Solved!


Thanks to Maurice DesJardins, a subscriber to UFO UpDates
Mailing List, we now have information on what has happened to
Joseph Trainor, the editor of UFO Roundup.

Joe's letter follows in it's entirety as copied by Maurice:

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

June 23, 1999

Dear Maurice:

    I received your letter yesterday.  Thank you for the
opportunity to explain what's happening with UFO Roundup.
Please feel free to put this letter on the Net.  I never
realized so many people were readers of the newsletter!

    A couple of things spurred my move to Minnesota.  Back in
October my landlord in Warwick gave me the option of dropping my
apartment lease.  I decided to do so, mainly because if I'd
found a better paying job in New England, I wanted to be able to
move immediately.  Well, after I did so, the landlord raised my
rent by $50, so it went from $515 per month to $565!

    Back in October, I had two jobs--my day job in East
Greenwich, and I also taught a course in fiction writing at the
Brown University Learning Community, so I could pay the rent.
But Brown wasn't going to run one of my courses in April--not
enough applicants.  And I couldn't handle the rent with just my
retail job, so I had to clear out by May 1.

    I stayed online until April 15th.  The following day I moved
the furniture out of my apartment, diconnected my computer and
left for good on Monday, April 19.  With my car loaded with
essentials, I set out from Pawtucket at 8:30 AM on April 20.
(What a day to leave!  I knew it was the anniversary of
Mohammed's flight to Medina- -Al Hajira in Arabic.  But it was
also Hitler's birthday and the day of the Columbine Massacre--I
can sure pick 'em!)

    Anyway, here's the itinerary of my "Millennium Bugout."

    APRIL 20--from Pawtucket, RI to Buffalo, NY with a stop for
lunch in Pottersville, NY.

    APRIL 21--from Buffalo, NY to Erie, PA to Cleveland, Ohio to
Toledo, Ohio to Bay City, Mich.  I stayed at the Euclid Motel in
Bay City, where I stayed in June, 1982.

    APRIL 22--from Bay City, Mich. to Mackinac City, Mich. to
St. Ignace, Mich. to Seney, Mich., to Ironwood, Mich. where I
spent the night.  At long last, I was in the Northland.

    APRIL 23--from Ironwood, Mich. to Bayfield, Wis. to Ashland,
Wis. to Superior, Wis. then over the Platnick Bridge to my
destination, Duluth, Minn.  I arrived in Duluth at 11:15 AM.

    I didn't bring my computer with me, though.  Instead I
worked out a deal with my sister Carolyn.  We had some needed
upgrade work done--addition of a CD drive for one--and as soon
as I found an apartment, she was going to ship it to me.

    Well, I moved in her on May 1.  However, the installation
took longer than I expected, and Ca wasn't able to ship my
computer via UPS until May 17.  I had my telephone server, US
West, by then of course, so I plugged in and attempted to access
AOL.

    Then came the nasty shock. AOL has no local access number in
the Duluth area code--218.  Instead, you have to use AOL.net and
they have a surcharge of 10 cents a minute--$6 per hour!--on
that, even though I'm working again at a full time job, that's a
little too pricey for me.  Remember, I used to spend 10 to 12
hours a week on-line looking for news for UFO Roundup.  No way I
can afford $6 for access.

    Right now I'm hunting around for a local Internet server in
the 218 area code.  I will probably end up dropping my AOL
subscription.  When I get my new server, I'll be back on-line.
I still have a few moving-related tasks to complete, so getting
back on-line isn't a priority right this minute.  But I do hope
to resume UFO Roundup or start a new volume as soon as I'm able.

    Again, Maurice, thanks for getting in touch.

    Best wishes,  Joe Trainor

P.S. Would you contact my UFO Roundup partner John Hayes and
pass on this info?  You can reach him at:

jhayes@cableinet.co.uk

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

Thankfully Joe is well and will be back at some point in the
future. When I hear from him I will post an update.

My thanks to Maurice DesJardins for passing the message on.

Regards,

John Hayes

jhayes@cableinet.co.uk
webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com
UFO Roundup:- http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/
Filer's Files:- http://ufoinfo.com/filer/
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences:-
        http://ufoinfo.com/ufoicq/








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

              Re: Theorist Predicts Life in Universe is Common

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 06:10:00
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:41:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Theorist Predicts Life in Universe is Common


[List only]

Source: AstroNews (Astronomy Magazine), 22 June 1999,

http://www.kalmbach.com:80/astro/news/news/0699Origins.html

Stig

***

ORIGIN OF LIFE

Theorists Predicts Life in Universe is Common, Waiting for
Discovery

**

The hypothesis that life is unique to Earth could prove to be
just as implausible as theories of Divine Creation. Chemist
Robert Shapiro suggests that the laws of nature might favor the
generation of life throughout the universe.

Shapiro's arguments are presented in "Prebiotic cytosine
synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin
of life," in the April 13, 1999, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.

Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University, also
lays out his argument in a new book entitled Planetary Dreams,
published by John Wiley & Sons. In the book and paper, Shapiro
argues that standard origin-of-life theories are badly flawed.
Such theories are dependent on a miraculous event: the
once-in-a-universe spontaneous generation of nucleic acids DNA
or RNA that make up plant, animal, and microbial genes or some
related molecule.

Shapiro, a specialist in the chemistry of DNA and RNA, marshals
an array of data to argue that the simplest kind of cellular
life may arise as a predictable result of organic chemistry and
the physics of self-organizing systems whenever planets exist
with the right constituents and conditions: a liquid or dense
gas medium (not necessarily water), a suitable energy source,
and a system of matter capable of using the energy to organize
itself. He calls this hypothesis the "life principle."
Furthermore, he argues that no predictable directions exist for
life's later development from these basic beginnings.

In addition, he argues that humankind's search for life beyond
Earth should continue to focus on those nearby worlds -- Mars,
Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's moon Titan -- where the
conditions appear to support the development of life.

He writes, "The debate over extraterrestrial life has been
carried out with a great deal of passion, but with little
progress, for centuries. Only in the last decades have we gained
the ability to move it forward by collecting data at close
range. We can send robots to inspect likely worlds such as Mars,
Europa and Titan, and return photographs, information and
samples, or, if we choose, we can go there ourselves and look
around. We may find existing life, remnants of extinct life, or
chemical systems evolving in the direction of life.
Alternatively, we may encounter monotonous wastelands, lacking
any sign that a process relevant to life has taken place there.
The results will help decide which of two very different views
of the Universe is more nearly correct."


22 June 1999

If you've come to this page from an outside link and you don't
see the ASTRONOMY Magazine Logo at the top of the page *Click
Here

ASTRONOMY is a Registered Trademark of Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Copyright � 1996,1997,1998,1999 Kalmbach Publishing Co.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 09:57:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 12:14:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:48:01 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>and remember that these sorts of claims (Satanic and abduction)
>>>can wreck people's lives.

>>Documentation, please, on how abduction claims have wrecked
>>lives.

>>Anecdotes not welcome, since they can easily be countered with
>>situations I've personally observed, in which people pulled
>>themselves together by coming to terms with their reported
>>abduction experiences.

>>Let's have some statistical data. What proportion of abductees
>>have wrecked their lives by thinking they've been abducted?

>Oh, come on, is this serious? Statistical data on wrecked lives?
>No anecdotes (i.e. actual examples of wrecked lives)? I can
>assure you that lives have been wrecked by claims of Satanic
>Ritual Abuse - anecdotes only, sorry, as unfortunately for some
>peculiar reason no-one seems to be collecting percentages of
>"wrecked lives" as opposed to "slightly concerned lives",
>"rather worried lives", or "terribly upset lives". Maybe the
>Office of Population and Statistics could put a question in
>their 2001 Census.

Delightful, John. If, ever in the future, you whisper even a
hint that any UFO believer is unscientific, I trust you'll blush
the deepest, most embarrassed red.

Statistics on wrecked lives? No, statistics on abduction
research. Or at least information about it. For instance: "I've
had the opportunity to observe 20 people who've worked with an
abduction investigator who does regressive hypnosis in stadiums
during football games. After knowing these 20 people for more
than a year, I've watched 14 of them become the worst kind of
football hooligans."

At least something like that, for God's sake. Not just bland
general allegations. Another way to put this, John, is that I'm
asking how large your sample is, when you say "remember that
[abduction] claims can wreck people's lives." How many
abductees, even approximately, do you imagine you know anything
about, and what percentage of them ruined their lives?

If you can't answer a question like that, you're just gossiping.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                               Re: WBAI RADIO

From: Paul Williams <paulw@escape.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:08:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 12:17:09 -0400
Subject: Re: WBAI RADIO


Hello,

Now you folks living in the hinterlands can pick up on the best
of New  York radio. Please visit either www.wbaifree.org, or my
website for program listings and webcast scheduals. WBAI has
some of the most provacative programs on the air in America, we
are non commercial and listener sponsored. WBAI tell's it like
it is so please check us out. And tell a friend. Attached is
recent pix of myself. Please hit .ram link, that will launch
your real audio player. Today is the Gay Pride march and we'll
be webcasting the live from the march and station. Please pass
the word. And again either hit .ram link, or visit the two site.
Their fun sites.


Paul Williams
Executive Producer UFO Desk
WBAI NY 99.5 FM
ICQ#32519151
Listen to UFO Desk on the web,
http://www.escape.com/~paulw/ufodesk.html
Long Live Samori Marksman Hero of the People!
http://205.158.50.198/rams/wbai.ram
Hit this link to hear WBAI live webcast.
UFO Desk alternate Sunday nite/Monday mornings at 1am.


[] MVC-001S.jpg





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                        Re: BWW Media Alert 19990627

From: BufoCalvin@aol.com
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:11:51 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 12:18:17 -0400
Subject: Re: BWW Media Alert 19990627


Bufo Calvin
P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Internet: BufoCalvin@aol.com
Website: <A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin">http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin
</A>
<A HREF="http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/bwnl">Bufo's WEIRD NEWS LINKS</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/bufosweirdworld">Link
to Amazon.com
</A>
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this
edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD provided that attribution is made to
http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin. It is good etiquette to check with
strangers before you e-mail them something. If you forward this, please make
sure it is clear that you are forwarding it).

June 27, 1999

As usual, let me know what you think at <A HREF="mailto:
bufocalvin@aol.com">BufoCalvin@aol.com
</A>.

On to the listings: Times are generally Pacific.

LIVE EVENTS (Lectures, conferences, etc.)

Fred Beckman, a major figure in UFO research, will be speaking at the Redwood
City (California) Women's Club on Thursday, July 1, at 7:30 PM.  I've spoken
with Fred a few times, and he is a must-see if you are in the area.
CONTACT INFO: Charles Grotsky at 650-343-5202, e-mail at
charles@shiftreality.com, website at
<A HREF="http://www.shiftreality.com/">http://www.shiftreality.com/<;/A>

RADIO

Eddie Middleton's very popular show in the South, Nightsearch, has a website
at
<A HREF="http://listen.to/nightsearch">http://listen.to/nightsearch<;/A>.
Starting soon, the new website at
<A HREF="http://www.nightsearch.net/">http://www.nightsearch.net/<;/A>.
Unfortunately, no streaming audio. Sundays from 2:00 to 4:00 PM (Pacific).
The call-in line is 901-365-1430.

Don Ecker, of UFO MAGAZINE, hosts STRANGE DAZE on the Liberty Works. It can
be heard on streaming Real Audio at
<A
HREF="http://www.broadcast.com/radio/talk/lwrn">http://www.broadcast.com/radio
/talk/lwrn
</A>.

Mike Jarmus, REALITY AND BEYOND, 7:00 PM Sundays,
<A HREF="http://spectrum.orn.com/omega.ram">http://spectrum.orn.com/omega.ram
</A>. Streaming audio available

Sunday, June 27, 7:00 PM, Michael Cremo, on alternative history

ART BELL - DREAMLAND
Currently, the most popular talk show on this area.
<A HREF="http://www.artbell.com/">http://www.artbell.com/<;/A>. Live streaming
audio (and video) available.

JEFF RENSE - SIGHTINGS
Jeff is well-versed on the topics, but likes to let the guests speak,
resulting in one of the best radio shows on these topics. You can hear Real
Audio of the show, and there are archives as well. Go to
<A HREF="http://www.sightings.com/">http://www.sightings.com/<;/A> for more
information. The show is on at 7:00 PM Pacific Monday through Friday, and
8:00 PM Pacific on Sunday. You can hear it anywhere through your computer.
Please note that Jeff also often covers topics which I do not consider
relevant to this list. To subscribe to the Jeff Rense Weekly E-news (which
includes articles and a complete guest listing), e-mail (subject: Subscribe)
<A HREF="mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net">mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net</A>.

Tuesday, June 29, 7:00 PM, Ingo Swann, who developed the "remote viewers" for
the military. Don't miss this repeat!
Wednesday, June 30, 7:00 PM, Michael Lindemann, Weekly UFO/World report;
Constance Clear on abductions
Thursday, July 1, 7:00 PM, repeat with Peter Robbins on the Bentwaters UFO
case
Friday, July 2, repeat with John Vasquez on a possible mass abduction at
Fort. Benning

PAUL WILLIAMS & SCOTT CARR: UFO DESK
This New York show has been around for years, but is now available on
streaming audio. The website is
<A
HREF="http://www.escape.com/~paulw/ufodesk.html">http://www.escape.com/~paulw/
ufodesk.html
</A>. It runs at 8:00 PM (Pacific) on Sundays.

JEFF MISHLOVE AND THE VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY
Webcast every weekday at 8:00 PM for two hours, with a repeat at 10:00 PM.
Webcast at
<A HREF="http://www.wisdomradio.com/">http://www.wisdomradio.com/<;/A>.

ERSKINE OVERNIGHT
Webcast 9:00 PM to Midnight with an immediate repeat at
<A HREF="http://www.talkamerica.com/">Talkamerica.com</A>

TELEVISION

CHANNEL 7 (Australia)

Saturday, July 3, 10:50 PM (time zone unknown), SIGHTINGS (episode unknown)

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL (Europe)

Monday, June 28, midnight (GMT+1), LONELY PLANET (includes a trip to Roswell)
Monday June 28, 1:10 PM (GMT+1), ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S MYSTERIOUS WORLD: THE
RIDDLE OF THE STONES (British megaliths)
Tuesday, June 28, 9:00 PM (GMT+1), AREA 51 - THE REAL STORY
Thursday, June 30, 1:10 PM (GMT+1), ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S MYSTERIOUS WORLD: UFOS

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL (USA)
Saturday, July 3, 9:00 PM, SUPER PSYCHICS (debunking)
Thursday, July 1, 10:00 PM, INTO THE UNKNOWN: MONSTERS OF THE DEEP
Friday, July 2, 1:00 AM, INTO THE UNKNOWN: MONSTERS OF THE DEEP
Saturday, July 3, 2:00 PM, INTO THE UNKNOWN: MONSTERS OF THE DEEP
Next Sunday, July 4, 1:00 AM, SUPER PSYCHICS (debunking)

THE LEARNING CHANNEL (USA)

Sunday, June 27, 8:00 PM, UFOS: FIFTY YEARS OF DENIALS
Sunday, June 27, 9:00 PM, UFOS: UNCOVERED: ARE ALIENS HERE?
Sunday, June 27, 10:00 PM, UFOS UNCOVERED: DARK SECRETS (includes pilot UFO
sightings and Area 51)
Sunday, June 27, 11:00 PM, UFOS: FIFTY YEARS OF DENIALS
Monday, June 28, 12:00 AM, UFOS: UNCOVERED: ARE ALIENS HERE?
Monday, June 28, 1:00 AM, UFOS UNCOVERED: DARK SECRETS (includes pilot UFO
sightings and Area 51)
Wednesday, June 30, 7:00 PM, STRANGE SCIENCE: UNUSUAL PEOPLE (includes
spontaneous human combustion and psychic artists)
Thursday, July 1, 1:00 AM, STRANGE SCIENCE: UNUSUAL PEOPLE (includes
spontaneous human combustion and psychic artists)
Thursday, July 1, 10:00 PM, STRANGE SCIENCE: MYSTERIOUS SKIES (includes UFOs)
Friday, July 2, 1:00 AM, STRANGE SCIENCE: MYSTERIOUS SKIES (includes UFOs)
Friday, July 2, 10:00 PM, STRANGE SCIENCE, ODD SOUNDS (including talking
ghosts, ringing rocks, and the Taos hum)
Saturday, July 3, 1:00 AM, STRANGE SCIENCE, ODD SOUNDS (including talking
ghosts, ringing rocks, and the Taos hum)
Saturday, July 3, 5:00 PM, UFOS: FIFTY YEARS OF DENIALS
Saturday, July 3, 6:00 PM, UFOS UNCOVERED: ARE ALIENS HERE?
Saturday, July 3, 7:00 PM, UFOS UNCOVERED: DARK SECRETS
Next Sunday, July 4, 2:00 PM, STRANGE SCIENCE: MYSTERIOUS SKIES (includes
UFOs)
Next Sunday, July 4, 3:00 PM, STRANGE SCIENCE: UNUSUAL PEOPLE (includes
spontaneous human combustion and psychic artists)

LOCAL CABLE (USA)

Sunday, June 27, 1:30 AM, Manhattan Neighborhood Network (NY), BEYOND THE
UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>): second part of a four-parter on the Andreasson/Luca family abductions

Sunday, June 27, 9:30 PM, CABLEVISION OF WOODBURY NY (CH35/80/96), BEYOND THE
UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>): third part of a four-parter on the Andreasson/Luca family abductions

Monday, June 28, 10 AM, CABLEVISION OF RIVERHEAD NY (CH27), BEYOND THE
UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>): fourth part of a four-parter on the Andreasson/Luca family abductions

Monday, June 28, 11 PM, CABLEVISION OF YONKERS NY (CH 59/37), BEYOND THE
UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):
JUNE 28,1999ABDUCTIONS PART 4

TUESDAY CH 34 830PM CABLEVISION OF YORKTOWN HEIGHTS NY BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED
(
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):
JUNE 29, 1999 ABDUCTIONS PART 4

TUESDAY CH 6 830 PM COMMUNITY TV OF SANTE FE, NEW MEXICO BEYOND THE
UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):
JUNE 29.1999 JACKIE KANTOR SPIRITUALIST

TUESDAY,
JUNE QUEENS QPTV CH 56 10PM BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):

WEDNESDAY CH 12 830PM GATEWAY ACCESS 12 SPRING CREEK NY BEYOND THE
UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):
JUNE 30, 1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PART 1 ABDUCTIONS

WEDNESDAY PAC 8 OF LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO CH 8 4PM BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):
Various paranormal topics

WEDNESDAY CH12 MINNESOTA CABLE ACCESS TRAC 12 4PM& 1130PM BEYOND THE
UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):
JUNE 30.1999 TONY "THE BARD" IZZO "POET" SINGER" COMPOSER

THURSDAY CH 25 5PM CABLEVISION OF HAUPPAGUE NY BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):

THURSDAY CH 27 10 AM LTV OF EASTHAMPTON NY BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):
JUNE 24, 1999 ABDUCTIONS PT 4

FRIDAYS CH 8 9PM PAC 8 TV OF LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):
JUNE 25, 1999 THE ANDREASSON LUCA FAMILY PT 3 ABDUCTIONS

FRIDAYS CH 99 930PM CABLEVISION OF BROOKHAVEN NY BEYOND THE UNEXPLAINED (
<A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/Rosebuds6/index.html">http://members.aol.com/Rose
buds6/index.html
</A>):
JUNE 25, 1999 ERICH VON DANIKEN "AUTHOR" CHARIOT OF THE GODS"

NBC (USA)
Sunday, June 27, 8:00 PM, DATELINE NBC: Joe Firmage, the CEO who quit to
investigate UFOs

THE SCIENCE CHANNEL

New schedule again, since March 29, 1999.
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 9:00 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE (don't know
which one)
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 9:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Weekdays, 10:00 AM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 5:00 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 5:30 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Weekdays,6:00 PM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Every day but Monday and Sunday, 1:00 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Every day but Monday and Sunday, 1:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Tuesdays through Saturdays, 2:00 AM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 9:00 AM and 9:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S
MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 5:00 PM and 5:30 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S
MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
Saturdays, OUT OF THIS WORLD all day long

THE SCI-FI CHANNEL (US Feed)

Sightings
Tuesday, June 29, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS (haunting; underwater UFO)
Wednesday, June 30, 11:00 SIGHTINGS (Washington DC UFOs; Whitley Strieber;;
Japanese exorcism)
Thursday, July 1, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS (Socorro UFO landing documents; shamans)
Friday, July 2, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS (pilot UFO disappearance ((Valentich?))
Tuesday, July 6, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS (abduction; haunted house)
Wednesday, July 7, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS (Civil War past lives; psychic spies;
1962 UFO)
Thursday, July 8, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS (Mantell UFO case; psychic detectives;
ghosts)
Friday, July 9, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS (Peruvian UFOs; psychic prediction;
Martian structures)

SYNDICATED (USA)
Monday, July 5, MONTEL WILLIAMS: psychic Sylvia Browne
___________________________

This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!"
____________________________

You can stop receiving this from me just by asking (note: it is commonly
redistributed, and I can't control you getting it from those sources) by
e-mail at BufoCalvin@aol.com. You can also subscribe or unsubscribe to Bufo's
WEIRD WORLD Media Alert the same way. Also, please let me know if there is
something in the media you think I should cover. Deadline is Tuesday, the
week before.
_____________________________

Back to <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/BufoCalvin/index.html">BufoCalvin's
Home Page
</A>
Back to <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin/ma.html">Bufo's WEIRD
WORLD Media Alert
</A>
Back to <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.html">Bufo's WEIRD
WORLD Books
</A>

E-mail to <A HREF="mailto:bufocalvin@aol.com">BufoCalvin@aol.com</A>







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:46:05 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 12:20:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:20:30 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Dear Mr Gilbert:

>Somehow, I have difficulty seeing two fellows, late from some
>pub, sucessfully oiling a pair of roller skates -- let alone
>hoaxing a decent crop circle.

Granted, you couldn't do it on Coors or Bud Lite or whatever you
guys drink over there, but these boyos would probably have been
drinking Wadworths 6X or Gale's HSB. After a few pints of those,
crop-circles would be no problem - Mandelbrot figures, the lot.

-- John Rimmer

www.magonia.demon.co.uk
Official Sponsors of the 1999 Solar Eclipse






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                         Re: Filer's Files #25 - 99

From: Phillip S Duke <drpduke@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:51:50 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 12:30:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #25 - 99


>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:39:15 EDT
>Subject: Filer's Files #25
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

>INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL: ACCELERATION AND MISSION PROFILE: Most
>writers, and physicists too, in estimating the time for
>interstellar travel, neglect the effect of the accelerating
>portions of the trip on the trip time, making the simplifying
>assumption that the vehicle makes the entire trip at constant
>velocity.  This is probably done because the requisite equations
>are scarce items in the literature... snip. 4.  It is possible
>for an interstellar trip to be very short.  The trip from our
>nearest neighbor, Alpha Centuri, a triple star system 4.3 light
>years away made by acceleration at 140 g to a v/c of 0.9999 is
>accomplished from a standing start to a standing finish in 6
>weeks.  Snip At the highest speeds considered, the travel time
>is not at all proportional to the distance.  For example at 20 g
>and v/c=0.9999 we read a distance of 25 light years takes 0.6
>years on board, while a distance of 100 light years is covered
>in almost a year.  The reason is easy to visualize.  Once the
>vehicle is up to speed, vast amounts of additional distance may
>be covered during the coast period with but little increase in
>time and, obviously, with no increase in additional light year

>CONCLUSION: I hope I have made it clear that there is an
>important distinction to be made between the time experienced by
>the space traveler and the time which passes meanwhile on the
>home planet and on the planetary destination.  The tremendous
>acceleration, speed, and energy capability displayed by UFOs
>make them well suited to capitalize on this distinction by the
>attainment of greatly reduced on board times realizable by
>approaching the speed of light.  Even an approach to 90 percent
>of light gets the job done for the nearer stars.  Higher
>fractions of light speed give attractive time reductions for
>longer trips.  Don't be misled by the countless statements in
>the literature that interstellar distances and the speed of
>light constitute some kind of barrier to space travel.  There
>are only two paths to this conclusion:  Nobody in the universe
>has the technology to approach light speed.  Observer time is
>significant, and on board time is to be ignored.  Both paths are
>false ones.  The confused second view is the more common.  Its
>proponents are using the observed time for light to travel as
>the shortest possible time for passage.  "Totally false."
>Thanks to Paul Hill, "Unconventional Flying Objects."  Pages
>268-279 Editor's Note: The sailors who crossed the ocean a
>couple hundred years ago and those settlers who crossed the West
>in wagon trains would find the trip aboard a fast space ship to
>another star system a reasonable time period.  The biggest
>problem would be that their friends and relatives would be
>unlikely to be alive when they returned, so they might decide to
>bring them along.

Mr. Filer has done ufology an important service by writing about
the work of Dr. Paul R. Hill deceased. Dr. Hill's excellent book
"Unconventional Flying Objects"republished by Hampton Roads is
before me as I write.

Dr. Hill acknowledges that his treatment of Interstellar Space
Flight is based on the Lorentz equations of Relativity
"incorporated by Einstein as a cornerstone of his Special Theory
of Relativity" (pg. 264). Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity was published in 1906 and confirmed during the total
Solar Eclipse of 1918. So it has been around awhile. Ufologists
who discuss Interstellar Spaceflight must do their homework
first. Relativistic concepts definitely apply here.

The work of Dr. Hill is generally excellent, however he does not
consider the fact that as acceleration decreases apparent on
board time, it also increases on board apparent mass. Therefore
the energy requirement to accelerate the increasing mass also
increases. Even with atomic energy the calculated energy
requirements to obtain very close to light speeds become
prohibitive. Due to this consideration, practical travel to
stars beyond roughly hundreds of  light years away appears
unlikely.

The bottom line on this is, that even if lengthy social time
considerations (on the planet of origin) are ignored,
Relativistic energy considerations evidently prohibit practical
travel to the more distant stars. And therefore to other
galaxies.

It may be of interest that the Betty Hill Star Map pinpointed
her alien abductor's home planet to be only 25 light years away,
a practically close distance according to Relativistic
considerations.

The theoretical situation with respect to "Black Holes" in
space, is different. The enormously strong gravity of such holes
has a number of effects, including the very marked  slowing of
elapsed "on board" time, so that in theory a wormhole in space
originating at one end as a Black hole and terminating at the
other in a distant Galaxy, might allow travel to extremely
distant locations in very little on board time. Of course the
immense gravity should crush anything living into a layer one
molecule thick, but at least in theory such travel is possible
via Black Holes.

It is not difficult to calculate that at a constant comfortable
one g acceleration to midpoint, with a constant one g
deceleration to destination, travel to any planet in the solar
system from within the solar system is brief and does not
involve Relativistic considerations. As I recall such a trip
from Earth to Mars takes less than a week. Travel within the
solar system is much easier than to the stars.

Persons interested in further reading are referred to Einstein's
Universe by Nigel Caldwell Wings Books, and Dr. Hill's book
recently republished by Hampton Roads.

  Phil Duke Ph.D.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:36:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:17:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>>Somehow, I have difficulty seeing two fellows, late from some
>>pub, sucessfully oiling a pair of roller skates -- let alone
>>hoaxing a decent crop circle.

>Granted, you couldn't do it on Coors or Bud Lite or whatever you
>guys drink over there,

Jack Daniels. Wild Turkey. Maker's Mark. 120-proof Berghoff's
bourbon, only sold at Berghoff's in Chicago. One sip will
demonstrate why Britain lost its empire.

The U.S., therefore, should be full of crop circles -- not just
Mandelbrots, but detailed encodings of the entire Bible,
inscribed on amber waves of grain.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: John Hayes <jhayes@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:48:24 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:16:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:58:47 -0700
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: neil morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>From: John Gilbert <john@greendome.force9.co.uk>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Doug & Dave?
>>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:56:44 +0100

>>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>>>Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 03:37:55 +0200 (MET DST)
>>>Subject: 'London Evening Standard' On Rockefeller
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>>In 1992, two Southampton men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley,
>>>confessed to making corn circles: every summer night for 20
>>>years. Their method was simple: rakes and planks of wood to
>>>bash down the crop, ropes to guide them to a perfect circle,
>>>loops of wire on hats to guide straight lines.

>>Just to take-off on a different thread. Does anyone here belive
>>that these two people actualy ever made a single crop circle?
>>Not only have they failed to make one with anyone watching, but
>>they claim to have made perfect straight lines with a loop of
>>wire attached to the brim of a baseball hat. Now think about it,
>>that wouldn't actually work.

>A couple of months back here in the UK a BBC team, I think it
>was from the "Country File" program at BBC Bristol, challenged
>Doug and Dave + their team of helpers to produce a "circle"
>under real life circumstances out in the fields at night. They
>_did_ produce a circle/design at night and with hords of circle
>watchers in the vacinity, even though the camera team was a bit
>of a dead givaway.

>I don't think it really _proved_ anything in the end though, other
>than, yes the hoaxers _can_ "do it" at night and under the eyes of
>the watchers.


Hello Neil,

I remember this being reported but did not see the programme
that resulted. What I would like to know is:

Did the BBC crew use night vision cameras?

If I recall correctly there were reports of researchers being
stopped by the police.

Regards,

John Hayes

jhayes@cableinet.co.uk
webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com
UFO Roundup:- http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/
Filer's Files:- http://ufoinfo.com/filer/
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences:-





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 13:05:35 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:20:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:58:46 EDT
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:45:18 -0500

>>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:18:34 -0400

>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>>>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:55:56 EDT
>>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>>>To: updates@globalserve.net

><snips>

>>Hi Greg, Kevin, etc.

>>First, congrats again to 'Doc Kev' on his acadmemic
>>accomplishment. As an aside- kevin, may I ask what your
>>dissertation was on? Just curious if you were at all able to
>>bring in the UFO stuff into your work, even in an indirect
>>manner.

>Tim, All -

>Again, thanks. My dissertation was called "The Influence of
>Preexisting Belief in UFOs on the Identification of Ambiguous
>Astronomical and Meteorological Stimuli." The point was not to
>determine if UFOs were extraterrestrial or some other phenomena
>but to study the influence of belief structure on the
>identification of somewhat obscure objects.

>I had hoped to do something with sleep paralysis and alien
>abductions, but couldn't get the review committee to go along
>with that. This was sort of a compromise.

>KRandle, Ph.D.
>www.randlereport.com

Dear Kevin:

The title of your dissertation is interesting.

Did you present any findings which could be summarized here, at
least briefly?

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 13:44:35 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:24:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:46:05 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:20:30 -0700
>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Dear Mr Gilbert:

>>Somehow, I have difficulty seeing two fellows, late from some
>>pub, successfully oiling a pair of roller skates -- let alone
>>hoaxing a decent crop circle.

>Granted, you couldn't do it on Coors or Bud Lite or whatever you
>guys drink over there, but these boyos would probably have been
>drinking Wadworths 6X or Gale's HSB. After a few pints of those,
>crop-circles would be no problem - Mandelbrot figures, the lot.

>-- John Rimmer

>www.magonia.demon.co.uk
>Official Sponsors of the 1999 Solar Eclipse

Dear John:

When I wrote that, I had just stuck my nose into a pint bottle
of one of Samuel Smith's (Tadcaster Yorks) brews.

Very tasty, and not entirely unlike Samuel Adams brews from
Boston. Rather pricey however in California. [I keep some Coors
for the very hottest of days.]

To get to the point, by the time the sun came up I was having
difficulty watering the lawn with a simple hose and sprinkler ..
now maybe that's just me.

A crop circle would have been out of the question in my
particular case.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 20:45:39 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:35:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:58:47 -0700
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: neil morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>A couple of months back here in the UK a BBC team, I think it
>was from the "Country File" program at BBC Bristol, challenged
>Doug and Dave + their team of helpers to produce a "circle"
>under real life circumstances out in the fields at night. They
>_did_ produce a circle/design at night and with hords of circle
>watchers in the vacinity, even though the camera team was a bit
>of a dead givaway.

>I don't think it really _proved_ anything in the end though, other
>than, yes the hoaxers _can_ "do it" at night and under the eyes of
>the watchers.

>Neil.

Hi Neil

Yes the country file was there, and so was I and about thirty
others to try and stop them. Darren Danks semi organised a
UK-UFO-Network weekend crop-watching. Whilst we where out Paul
Damon heard that there was a tv team out to fake a CC and we
went out with Paul and _Matthew_Williams_ (he of the "I faked
crop circles to research the researchers" fame).

Whilst we was there a member of the UK-UFO-Network asked Dave
about the crop circle faking bonaza and Dave told him that the
likes of "Team Satan" have been faking some of the more advanced
patterns and that he also knew of many more people who did
exactly the same. This led Andy (of UK-UFO-Network) to believe
_all_ crop circles are faked.

Now I have no opinion on whether crop circles are hoaxed en
masse or are "intelligently" made by some other "force" but if
the same statistics apply to crop circles as UFO's then roughly
95percent can be explained.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:25:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:13:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 09:57:57 -0400

>>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:48:01 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>Oh, come on, is this serious? Statistical data on wrecked lives?
>>No anecdotes (i.e. actual examples of wrecked lives)? I can
>>assure you that lives have been wrecked by claims of Satanic
>>Ritual Abuse - anecdotes only, sorry, as unfortunately for some
>>peculiar reason no-one seems to be collecting percentages of
>>"wrecked lives" as opposed to "slightly concerned lives",
>>"rather worried lives", or "terribly upset lives". Maybe the
>>Office of Population and Statistics could put a question in
>>their 2001 Census.

>Delightful, John. If, ever in the future, you whisper even a
>hint that any UFO believer is unscientific, I trust you'll blush
>the deepest, most embarrassed red.

>Statistics on wrecked lives? No, statistics on abduction
>research. Or at least information about it. For instance: "I've
>had the opportunity to observe 20 people who've worked with an
>abduction investigator who does regressive hypnosis in stadiums
>during football games. After knowing these 20 people for more
>than a year, I've watched 14 of them become the worst kind of
>football hooligans."

>At least something like that, for God's sake. Not just bland
>general allegations. Another way to put this, John, is that I'm
>asking how large your sample is, when you say "remember that
>[abduction] claims can wreck people's lives." How many
>abductees, even approximately, do you imagine you know anything
>about, and what percentage of them ruined their lives?

>If you can't answer a question like that, you're just gossiping.

>Greg Sandow

And this from someone who admitted just a few months ago that
abduction researchers don't even have statistics on what
proportion of their subjects are Black, White or Hispanic.

--
John Rimmer
www.magonia.demon.co.uk
Official Sponsors of the 1999 Solar Eclipse





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:58:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:51:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:58:46 EDT
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>Again, thanks. My dissertation was called "The Influence of
>Preexisting Belief in UFOs on the Identification of Ambiguous
>Astronomical and Meteorological Stimuli." The point was not to
>determine if UFOs were extraterrestrial or some other phenomena
>but to study the influence of belief structure on the
>identification of somewhat obscure objects.

>I had hoped to do something with sleep paralysis and alien
>abductions, but couldn't get the review committee to go along
>with that. This was sort of a compromise.

>KRandle, Ph.D.
>www.randlereport.com


Hi Kevin,

Sounds very interesting. Actually, if you have seen any of my
posts a few weeks back, your dissertation relates to an idea I
am considering examining on a minor scale (ie, small study).
That is- are there significant ERP (event related brain
potential- recorded via EEG) differences in UFO experiencers or
abductees vs. the general population when they evaluate
ambiguous stimuli? Is there some difference that we can measure
going on in the brain when an experiencer sees/experiences
something ambiguous? I still have to do a _lot_ of lit reviews
before I can decide if this is even feasible, but still, I think
it may prove promising. Tim


)+(
TBrigham@ksinc.net
http://zap.to/DevilsAdvocate  The Devil's Advocate
http://zap.to/MindPhuck  Operation MindPhuck
"Better to go hungry than to feast on lies."
)+(










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                        BBC: 'Fying Saucer' Grounded

From: Steven J. Dunn <SDunn@logicon.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 05:04:38 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:56:31 -0400
Subject: BBC: 'Fying Saucer' Grounded

Sunday, June 27, 1999 Published at 03:12 GMT 04:12 UK

'Flying saucer' grounded

A flying saucer project which attempted to turn science fiction
into science fact has reportedly been thwarted by a lack of
funds.

Aviation engineers in the Russian city of Saratov developed a
small prototype craft two years ago, according to Ren TV in
Russia.  But the project has now been shelved because the money
has run out.

Now workers at the plant are "hoping for  some assistance from
on high, or maybe even from aliens," the TV said.  Although the
shape of the craft takes its inspiration from  old science
fiction movies, the aim of its designers is said to  be no less
than the first step towards "an absolutely new concept of
flying".

"The new aircraft is fundamentally different from all means of
transportation known so far," the TV report said.

The original concept for the saucer, perhaps  optimistically
named "Ecology and Progress", envisaged a craft that could move
at 700 km/h, accommodate up to 1,000 people and land anywhere,
including mountainous terrain or water.

An air cushion system would allow it almost vertical take-off
and landing. It was not clear from the report whether the
prototype was  actually capable of getting off the ground.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:23:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:58:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:58:47 -0700
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: neil morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


<snip>

>A couple of months back here in the UK a BBC team, I think it
>was from the "Country File" program at BBC Bristol, challenged
>Doug and Dave + their team of helpers to produce a "circle"
>under real life circumstances out in the fields at night. They
>_did_ produce a circle/design at night and with hords of circle
>watchers in the vacinity, even though the camera team was a bit
>of a dead givaway.

>I don't think it really _proved_ anything in the end though, other
>than, yes the hoaxers _can_ "do it" at night and under the eyes of
>the watchers.

They did it at night...BUT

...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.did they do it in total darkness?

(HINT: there were cameras watching,,,,,,,,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 99 09:23:25 PDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:00:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:25:54 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 09:57:57 -0400

>>>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:48:01 +0100
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>And this from someone who admitted just a few months ago that
>abduction researchers don't even have statistics on what
>proportion of their subjects are Black, White or Hispanic.


John,

With all due respect, this is no answer at all.  At least
everybody agrees that abductees come from a variety of races and
ethnic groups.  That's noncontroversial.  To make a blanket
statement such as yours -- that abductions wreck lives --
without offering a shred of real evidence to that effect is
quite something else, however.

Jerry Clark






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:48:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:09:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:48:24 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Hayes <jhayes@cableinet.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>>A couple of months back here in the UK a BBC team, I think it
>>was from the "Country File" program at BBC Bristol, challenged
>>Doug and Dave + their team of helpers to produce a "circle"
>>under real life circumstances out in the fields at night. They
>>_did_ produce a circle/design at night and with hords of circle
>>watchers in the vacinity, even though the camera team was a bit
>>of a dead givaway.

>>I don't think it really _proved_ anything in the end though, other
>>than, yes the hoaxers _can_ "do it" at night and under the eyes of
>>the watchers.

>Hello Neil,

>I remember this being reported but did not see the programme
>that resulted. What I would like to know is:

>Did the BBC crew use night vision cameras?


John (and Sean,thanks for the comments from the "other side"<g>)

The BBC crew were using "nightvision" on the camera and though I
said the "Doug and Dave" crew _did_ manage to complete their
"design", and I think there were around 6 in the D+D team, it
was a very near run thing and dawn was breaking by the time they
were finished.

>If I recall correctly there were reports of researchers being
>stopped by the police.

You'd best ask Sean (Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>)
about that as he was there, I do remember "some" agro being
filmed in the prog, I only wish I'd have taped it now.

I've an open mind about C-circles, but I can remember being
mighty impressed by a photograph shown by a visiting Russian
speaker to one of the Sheffield BUFORA Conferences (same year as
they had the AA film) of a beautiful circle, but not in a crop
field, this was impressed into a frozen Siberian river. It's
that sort of evidence that leads me to feel we're dealing here
with an extreamly rare but natural process.

Neil.



*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
UK.                \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/
G8KOQ


             E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk

Roswell and Alien Autopsy Archive->  http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/
Dave Willetts Home Page->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/dave_willetts/
Mike Sterling Home Page->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/mike-s/
Tim Morgan Home Page   ->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/tim-m/

*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:51:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:12:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:25:54 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>At least something like that, for God's sake. Not just bland
>>general allegations. Another way to put this, John, is that I'm
>>asking how large your sample is, when you say "remember that
>>[abduction] claims can wreck people's lives." How many
>>abductees, even approximately, do you imagine you know anything
>>about, and what percentage of them ruined their lives?

>>If you can't answer a question like that, you're just gossiping.

>>Greg Sandow

>And this from someone who admitted just a few months ago that
>abduction researchers don't even have statistics on what
>proportion of their subjects are Black, White or Hispanic.

Exactly. I stated this very plainly, without first having to be
challenged. (Though only concerning Budd Hopkins; I don't know
about other researchers).

I think I named it as a problem, but if I didn't, I've done so
in the past about other missing abduction statistics, such as
the percentage of abductees who have the allegedly unexplainable
marks Budd so often talks about.

Give it up, John. You're not making sense. This isn't a
discussion about who's less scientific, abduction researchers or
skeptics. I've always said abduction research has problems. It's
a discussion about whether you, John Rimmer -- when you say
abduction claims have ruined lives -- know what you're talking
about.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                        Re: New Project 1947 Web Site

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 12:33:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:13:00 -0400
Subject: Re: New Project 1947 Web Site


>From: Moderator, UFO Updates - Toronto

>For those subscribers who really want to dig below
>the surface of UFO phenomena, John Stepkowski has
>re-established the Poject 1947 web site at:

>http://www.project1947.com/

>Nicely done John. I know that you've been through
>some trying digital times recently and the site
>is a substantial asset to serious research.

>Errol

Dear Errol, List and Mr. Stepkowski;

Thank you so much for this referral, Errol. I just audited the
site and stayed overly long in the process, finding the
information first rate and extremely interesting. I shall be
spending a lot more time there in future.

The best reason I wish to learn from facts as opposed to
someone's puffed up ego, is that I really want to know if I
should be laughing at myself or that inflated ego I keep
assigning to my boss for proper treatment of the offending
silly fossifer/researcher.

I _don't_ have the answers, just a lot of questions. But a lot
of good, hard working folks out there have some of the facts we
need to get to the answers.

The problem I have, and the resulting frustration, is being able
to separate the facts from the horse hockey. Separating fact
from someone's fiction (portrayed as "truth") is the best part
of reading Jacques Vallee. And for your further intellectual
delight, I suggest reading his "UFO Chronicles of the Soviet
Union," Subtitled 'A Cosmic Samisdat.' It bears repeating.

This book explores areas of research which, in this country, or
virtually anywhere in the "enlightened" West, would be laughed
at from here to our own limited eternity. At least there, and up
until the writing of that book, the Russian researchers were
working together, in spite of differences in their research
tools, paradigms and things which here would never be considered
serious. They are doing something, or had been, that we cannot.
They were cooperating. Will wonders never cease!

In spite of lots of humor, some satire and a lot of kidding
around, I do appreciate good, factual information which is
capably and honestly presented. Such a breath of fresh air that
even Gesundt can't and _won't_ butt in with his own brand of
culpable stupidity, is this site.

Thank you and Mr. Stepkowski. Well done, even without a number
of Ph.D.'s -  I shall retire to Bedlam!

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:14:33 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:04:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:36:49 -0400

>>>Somehow, I have difficulty seeing two fellows, late from some
>>>pub, sucessfully oiling a pair of roller skates -- let alone
>>>hoaxing a decent crop circle.

>>Granted, you couldn't do it on Coors or Bud Lite or whatever you
>>guys drink over there,

>Jack Daniels. Wild Turkey. Maker's Mark. 120-proof Berghoff's
>bourbon, only sold at Berghoff's in Chicago. One sip will
>demonstrate why Britain lost its empire.

>The U.S., therefore, should be full of crop circles -- not just
>Mandelbrots, but detailed encodings of the entire Bible,
>inscribed on amber waves of grain.

So why isn't it?

Are you suggesting an alien communication would be made with the
people living on the land that contains the largest collection
of weapons?

Does that in some way make you feel superior??

All the time this mentality continues we are not likely to be
contacted.

Try to remember we are all humans living on the planet we call
Earth. Regardless of what piece of land we happen to have been
born on.

Dave.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:16:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:34:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:05:41 -0400
>Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:25:12 -0400
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

>Max never fails to amaze and entertain. No one has to lead him
>up the garden path, as he is quite capable of doing that
>entirely by himself His ability to misinterpret, distort and
>misrepresent facts really does deserve some kind of special award;
>as I've said before he is simply incapable of interpreting any
>kind of evidence correctly. Nowhere have I ever claimed that six
>specific aircraft from any specific airbase were the cause of
>the sonic booms recorded near Sheffield on March 24, 1997.
>That is a simple fact, something neither Max nor his
>"Truthseeker" friends could bring themselves to accept.

Well you are making the point that there was a covert mission on
top of the one already admitted to. This is not proven and is
just as much fiction as the type of horrific accusations you
make against Max. You seem incapable of keeping it "un-personal"
which is why behind the scenes I have now joined in the little
'war' going on. Not to defend the Sheffield case, not even to
defend Max Burns, but instead to defend anyone who should come
under the massive attacks you and Andy Roberts make against
them. If somebody disagrees with you, god help them, thats all I
can say. And this _has_ been noticed... by many people, not just
myself.

You have made a bad name for yourself in British Ufology by
attacking people and not facts. When you resorted to attempts to
get people arrested (partially successful) by virtue of your
_fabricated_ and exaggerated version of how somebody had failed
to pay a minor tax bill - you scraped as low as almost any could
get.

Seeing as you claim that Max and myself have a problem with the
facts... lets ignore the Sheffield case and look at the
fabricated facts you put forward to get Max arrested. This was
nothing to do with UFO investigation - this was pure bitterness
because you were being challenged and you were so sure of
yourself and your high moral ground that you investigated and
interfered with a legal matter which involved someone else. This
can only show you up to be the type of nasty character who would
also perpetrate the Blue Hare UFO hoax of which Max and myself
were the victims. This does not say that you _are_ the Bluehare
conspirator, but simply that you seem absolutely capable of it.
This is the impression shared by many I have spoken to...

And did I cause this? Or did your arrogant, ignorant, childish
and downright rude behaviour toward another human being give
you this title? You have egg on your face and I am quite happy
to keep telling people what an untrustworthy character you are
and to never trust you or Andy Roberts with any personal
information. You are leakier than a lake!

>For the benefit of the hard of hearing, I reproduce the relevant
>section from the conclusions to my Howden Moor report which
>demonstrates once again how Max is incapable of telling the
>truth:

>>There clearly was a military exercise taking place centred upon>
>>the Peak District that night, one phase of which (now officially
>>admitted) is timed from 7.30-9.30pm, when the RAF claim all
>>their aircraft were safely grounded and accounted for. However,
>>the evidence from both witnesses in Derbyshire and South
>>Yorkshire and the sonic booms recorded by the BGS suggest a
>>covert part of this operation continued after the booked
>>operation had been officially completed. Many more aircraft were
>>involved in this exercise than has been officially admitted as
>>is clear from the 13 low-flying complaints lodged with the RAF
>>on March 24 from widely separated areas of the British
>>coastline.

>>It is clear that a formation of Tornado aircraft travelled
>>across the Peak District on a southeast to northwest flightpath
>>between 9.45 and 10pm, coinciding with the first of two sonic
>>booms recorded 12 minutes apart from the Sheffield area.

>Discredited my own research?

>I think not!

No but as I stated before - your "conclusions" are only
suppositions and do not form _fact_. Max is on equal par with
you here because you simply cannot prove that aircraft caused
the sonic booms, as much as the evidence Max has which proves
that his witnesses changed their stories.

Another interesting fact is how all of Max's witnesses changed
their stories after you and Andy R. got to them. You then made
big claims about how you could show that Max Burns had lied
about their witness testimonies and that the witnesses were
claiming their words had been twisted.

However the truth of the situation, as you well know is that Max
Burns played a tape recording of one witness who states that he
was happy to allow Max to use his name, details of his statement
and claimed that the man he encountered stank of aviation fuel.

After you got to the witness the story changes to the witness
having not given permission to Max to talk about his case - that
Max had twisted his words. Your eyes lit up when you tried to
use this against Max but sadly you have been put back in your
seat because Max then produced the audio taped recording of this
mans voice. So you neatly skip over this _major_ point in the
case and go onto aircraft causing sonic booms being your latest
evidence to damn Max's research with.

When are you going to learn... its not a game of politics... who
is seen to be right... and who has the loudest voice... who can
dig up the most dirt on the other researcher. Its about the case
in question.

You have damaged the credibility of the IUN and yourself and a
man of your standing with apparent Doctor qualifications should
not be involving himself in such petty battles, and should be
sticking to the facts.

I did once make a challenge to David Clark to meet Max Burns and
discuss the differences at an open lecture, so that time could
be saved and people could be brought back together for the
benefit of research and this case. Clark point-blank refused to
attend any such meeting... even when we offered to stage it at
our expense in his home town. This _proves_ beyond any
reasonable doubt that Dr Clark's intention is to carry on a
petty war via email - he is not interested in any resolution to
this case unless it is the case being dismissed.

Lastly, we cannot ignore the possibility that there is some
other, hidden, agenda - for who would make it their life's goal
to attack others in such a harsh manner?

So I make, for a second time, the offer of an open debate,
chaired by a person/persons agreeable to both parties at a
location near to Mr Clark's so that the case notes can be
discussed in public.

Will Dr Clark find the time in his busy schedule to attend, or
is there something odd going on here. Does Mr Clark have to hide
behind his emails to this and other Lists in order to prove his
case. Can he not do this in public - with all of the vitriol and
hate left behind?

Matthew Williams
Truthseekers Research
http:\\www.truthseekers.freeserve.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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                     Re: Doug & Dave? [Caution: 'umour]

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:25:50 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:18:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave? [Caution: 'umour]


>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 13:44:35 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:46:05 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:20:30 -0700
>>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>>Dear Mr Gilbert:

>>>Somehow, I have difficulty seeing two fellows, late from some
>>>pub, successfully oiling a pair of roller skates -- let alone
>>>hoaxing a decent crop circle.

>>Granted, you couldn't do it on Coors or Bud Lite or whatever you
>>guys drink over there, but these boyos would probably have been
>>drinking Wadworths 6X or Gale's HSB. After a few pints of those,
>>crop-circles would be no problem - Mandelbrot figures, the lot.

>>-- John Rimmer

>>www.magonia.demon.co.uk
>>Official Sponsors of the 1999 Solar Eclipse

>Dear John:

>When I wrote that, I had just stuck my nose into a pint bottle
>of one of Samuel Smith's (Tadcaster Yorks) brews.

>Very tasty, and not entirely unlike Samuel Adams brews from
>Boston. Rather pricey however in California. [I keep some Coors
>for the very hottest of days.]

>To get to the point, by the time the sun came up I was having
>difficulty watering the lawn with a simple hose and sprinkler ..
>now maybe that's just me.

>A crop circle would have been out of the question in my
>particular case.

>Best wishes

>- Larry Hatch

Sirs, Madams, John, Larry, Greg, and Al...

As I explained in a direct post to Mr. Rimmer, if only you
people would accept my offer to manufacture Creep Circuses ...
crop circles, sorry, when in your Gripple cups, I am certain
that, like the alien abductors who fly sans wobble or wig was
when using Gripple, that all your attempts at crop circles will
be successful. At last, there will be amber waves of grain right
here in the US, of various and sundry complex shapes, tinted
purple with the early morning sunshine, and spilled Gripple
Grappa... not to mention weewee tinted purple.  Not only is
Gripple inebriating, it's also a mild diuretic thru the
kidneys.... and it makes your garden grow sideways, too.

Gesundt





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Jilain <jilain@plinet.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:51:01 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:37:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 20:45:39 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

<snip>

>Now I have no opinion on whether crop circles are hoaxed en
>masse or are "intelligently" made by some other "force" but if
>the same statistics apply to crop circles as UFOs then roughly
>95 percent can be explained.


It's that nagging little 5 percent that is the problem, don't ya
think? It just won't seem to go away......

Just a thought.....

jilain@plinet.com
ICQ #7524076
IRC Undernet #Devils_Tower



                  ~~~Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
                       Life is but an empty dream!
                     For the soul is dead that slumbers,
                       And things are not what they seem.~~~









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                  Western Australia To Help In Alien Search

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:59:09 GMT
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:15:49 -0400
Subject: Western Australia To Help In Alien Search


Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation,

http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/state/wa/archive/metwa-28jun1999-14.htm

Stig

***

North-western WA to help in alien search
Monday 28 June, 1999 (4:36pm WST)

**

The north-west of Western Australia will soon play a vital role
in the search for extraterrestrial life.

The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Research Institute
will develop the historic OTC satellite dish site at Carnarvon,
as well as a site at Derby.

The institute will add two new radio telescopes to its network
of 80, searching space for signals around the world.

The institute's director, Noel Wellstead, says the telescopes
will be used to search for radio, as well as visual signals.

"We're also looking in the optical spectrum, looking for signs
of advanced communications networks that may in fact use laser
beams to channel the information, much like we do here with
fibre optic cables, and we're looking for those types of
emissions from within the nearby regions of our own solar
system," he said.


� 1999 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Updated: Mon Jun 28 16:45:00 1999 (WST)

WST = Western Standard Time






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                  Mars Lander And Possibly Life Sites Eyed

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:19:39
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:22:49 -0400
Subject: Mars Lander And Possibly Life Sites Eyed


Source: Discovery (Channel) News Brief,

http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/brief4.html?ct=37780d5e

Stig

***

Mars Lander Sites Eyed

**

Scientists gathered at the University of Buffalo last week to
choose a landing site for a planned 2001 Mars mission amid
rumors that NASA budget cuts might scuttle the mission.

The Mars Surveyor 2001 Landing Site Workshop convened June 22-24
to select a range of potential targets, according to mission
manager Dave Spencer of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

According to Spencer, conference participants agreed on five
categories for the 2001 landing: Mars' ancient highlands;
layered deposits in the Valles Marineris (the so-called "Grand
Canyon of Mars'); sites known to contain iron; ancient lakebeds;
and anci ent hydrothermal, or hot spring, regions.

The hot springs would be "everyone's top choice" because it
would present the best candidate for possible evidence of past
life, says Spencer. "Unfortunately, it's the only one of the
five we haven't identified at any location."

He adds that an instrument aboard a Mars orbiter now en route to
the planet might be able to pick out such a region later this
year.

Meanwhile, the Mars Global Surveyor will take high resolution
images of approximately 40 possible sites that fit the first
four categories.

Spencer expects the primary landing site to be announced in
January.

Three days before the conference began, a Planetary Society
press alert said both the 2001 mission and a comet lander called
Champollion had been canceled by NASA headquarters.

The Planetary Society is a nonprofit organization co-founded by
the late Carl Sagan to promote planetary exploration.

"We heard a rumor," says Louis Friedman, the society's executive
director. "There's no question that NASA has a budget problem,
but there's also no question that the public supports Mars
exploration. We decided that public attention was needed to save
the mission."

According to Friedman, the ploy worked, and NASA backed down on
canceling the Mars mission, although he says the comet lander
still faces the ax.

"There was conversation about it," says Spencer of the rumored
cut. "But the scuttlebutt is that we're out of danger for the
moment."


By Michael Ray Taylor, Discovery News Brief

Picture: Malin Space Science Systems/NASA


Related Stories:

*Mission to Mars '99
*Search Our Space Directory


Tune in Fridays at 9 p.m. ET on the Discovery Channel.

Copyright � 1999 Discovery Communications 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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                 The Millennium Project News - June 28, 1999

From: Paul Anderson - TMP / CPR-Canada <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:41:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:24:10 -0400
Subject: The Millennium Project News - June 28, 1999



The Millennium Project News
News and Updates from The Millennium Project

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa
(frames)

June 28, 1999

_____________________________


WEEKLY BRIEFING:

First, apologies for no edition last week; the past week was
very hectic with a number of matters that needed to be attended
to, with work on this update being delayed as a result. We
should now be caught up to speed!

The crop circle season in England continues full steam, with new
formations being reported almost every day. As of this update,
the number is almost sixty. Many new, beautiful and intricate
formations this year (but then isn't that what we expected?).
Also, the larger of the two East Field formations from June 12
was about 1,020 feet long, not 700 feet as initially reported.
It's "serpent" companion was about half that size. More circles
being found in Holland, Germany and the Czech Republic as well.

The new sample photo and image archives have been added to the
web site in Special Research Projects for the Mystery Contrails
and Radar Anomalies to provide an initial visual presentation of
these phenomena. One can then explore the related reports and
links for much more additional information. More of my own
contrail photos are being scanned and will be added to the web
site shortly.

See below for complete listing of this week's news and updates.

Wishing a good week to all of you.

Paul Anderson
Director
The Millennium Project

_____________________________


NEWS AND REPORTS

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/news.html


* Latest Crop Circle Reports from England
* Unknown Object Photographed Over Area 51 Prior
   to People's Rally
* Filer's Files #25 - June 25, 1999
* SETI Swamped By Volunteer Alien-Seekers
* Theorist Predicts Life in Universe is Common
* NASA Launches Fossil-Finding Telescope
* Hubble Catches "Cosmic Butterfly"
* Hubble Completes Majestic Galaxy Portrait
* The Stonedisks of Baian-Kara-Ula
* Comparison of Face on Mars and Shroud of Turin
* From Mars, with Love
* Nessie Spotted on Nessie Cam?


SPECIAL RESEARCH PROJECTS

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/srp.html


Y2K:

* Washington Post Page One Y2K Article
* U.S. Government Y2K Grade Improves to 'B-'

Mystery Contrails:

* New - Sample Photo Archive

Radar Anomalies:

* New - Sample Image Archive

_____________________________


The Millennium Project News is the e-mail update service of
The Millennium Project, an independent research organization
initiated in January 1999 as an alternative source of news
and information to the maintream media. TMP was founded
by future studies researcher Paul Anderson, also director of
Circles Phenomenon Research Canada.

TMP News is published weekly or as breaking news develops,
with the latest news and reports, information on TMP events
and web site updates and is available free by subscription; to
be added to or removed from the mailing list, send your request,
including either "subscribe TMP News" or "unsubscribe TMP
News" and e-mail address to:  psa@direct.ca

TMP welcomes your news leads and submissions. Forward all
correspondence to:

E-Mail:
psa@direct.ca

Tel / Fax:
604.731.8522

Mail:
Suite 202 - 2086 West 2nd Avenue
Vancouver, BC
V6J 1J4
Canada

� The Millennium Project, 1999







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                         PRG - Program Announcement

From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:00:06 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:27:50 -0400
Subject: PRG - Program Announcement

Paradigm Research Group

Program Announcement - June 28, 1999

Program: Coast to Coast with Art Bell

Guest:   Stephen Bassett - lobbyist, consultant, founder
         of PRG, author of the Paradigm Clock website

Date:    Thursday/Friday,  July 1-2

Time:    11:00 pm  PST

Title:   The State of the Politics & Science of UFOs

Topics:  Has the "Empire Struck Back"
         Health/morbidity of UFO/ET research/activists
         Self-inflicted wounds
         MUFON '99 International Symposium (July 2-4)
         UFO State Ballot Initiative





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                                Satanic Abuse

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 23:44:23 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:29:11 -0400
Subject: Satanic Abuse


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:58:46 EDT
>Fwd Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:33:17 -0400
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>My dissertation was called "The Influence of
>Preexisting Belief in UFOs on the Identification of Ambiguous
>Astronomical and Meteorological Stimuli." The point was not to
>determine if UFOs were extraterrestrial or some other phenomena
>but to study the influence of belief structure on the
>identification of somewhat obscure objects.

Good work, Kevin:

Is it possible to get a copy of your dissertation or read in
online?  It sounds like it is right down the line of my interest
in the role that astronomical stimuli play in the subject.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:03:47 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:30:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:36:49 -0400
>Fwd Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:17:57 -0400
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

<snipped>

>The U.S., therefore, should be full of crop circles -- not just
>Mandelbrots, but detailed encodings of the entire Bible,
>inscribed on amber waves of grain.

Hi Greg, List:

Maybe the difference is that over here you could get shot for
destroying somebody's crops.  I have always wondered what the
local farmers are saying about all of these going on, with
people tramping all over the fields when they are discovered.
Do they have their theories about what's happening and why don't
we ever hear about them?

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:42:53 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:47:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:23:38 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


>>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:58:47 -0700
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: neil morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

><snip>

>>A couple of months back here in the UK a BBC team, I think it
>>was from the "Country File" program at BBC Bristol, challenged
>>Doug and Dave + their team of helpers to produce a "circle"
>>under real life circumstances out in the fields at night. They
>>_did_ produce a circle/design at night and with hords of circle
>>watchers in the vacinity, even though the camera team was a bit
>>of a dead givaway.

>>I don't think it really _proved_ anything in the end though, other
>>than, yes the hoaxers _can_ "do it" at night and under the eyes of
>>the watchers.

>They did it at night...BUT

<snip>

>.
>.
>.did they do it in total darkness?
>
>(HINT: there were cameras watching,,,,,,,,
>

Bruce,

Yes it was "done" under ambiant night conditions, ie darkness<g>,
the BBC team used "nightvision" on the video camera to make the
recording, and as Sean confirmed in an earlier post the circle
researchers had got wind of the hoaxing attempt and were in the
general area trying to track D+D+Co down, so use of any form of
"lighting" out in the landscape would have been a dead givaway.

It proved it could be done, thats all.
It didn't/couldn't prove they were ALL hoaxes.

Neil.

--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
UK.                \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/
G8KOQ


             E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk

Roswell and Alien Autopsy Archive->  http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/
Dave Willetts Home Page->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/dave_willetts/
Mike Sterling Home Page->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/mike-s/
Tim Morgan Home Page   ->    http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/tim-m/

*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 99 10:30:42 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:43:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:14:33 +0000
>From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:36:49 -0400

>>>>Somehow, I have difficulty seeing two fellows, late from some
>>>>pub, sucessfully oiling a pair of roller skates -- let alone
>>>>hoaxing a decent crop circle.

>>>Granted, you couldn't do it on Coors or Bud Lite or whatever you
>>>guys drink over there,

>>Jack Daniels. Wild Turkey. Maker's Mark. 120-proof Berghoff's
>>bourbon, only sold at Berghoff's in Chicago. One sip will
>>demonstrate why Britain lost its empire.

>>The U.S., therefore, should be full of crop circles -- not just
>>Mandelbrots, but detailed encodings of the entire Bible,
>>inscribed on amber waves of grain.

>So why isn't it?

>Are you suggesting an alien communication would be made with the
>people living on the land that contains the largest collection
>of weapons?

>Does that in some way make you feel superior??

My word, guy.  John and Greg were _joking_.  No reason to get
your back crammed up against the wall, or to croak out a dopey,
uncalled-for anti-American slam.  I'd respond in kind and ask if
Brits lack a sense of humor, if John Rimmer in this very
exchange hadn't already proved otherwise.  Jeez, Dave, lighten
up!

>Try to remember we are all humans living on the planet we call
>Earth. Regardless of what piece of land we happen to have been
>born on.

Wow.  You must be some kinda deep thinker, dude.

Jerry Clark






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                     Re: Doug & Dave? [Caution: 'umour]

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:06:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:56:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave? [Caution: 'umour]


>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:25:50 EDT
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>As I explained in a direct post to Mr. Rimmer, if only you
>people would accept my offer to manufacture Creep Circuses ...
>crop circles, sorry, when in your Gripple cups, I am certain
>that, like the alien abductors who fly sans wobble or wig was
>when using Gripple, that all your attempts at crop circles will
>be successful. At last, there will be amber waves of grain right
>here in the US, of various and sundry complex shapes, tinted
>purple with the early morning sunshine, and spilled Gripple
>Grappa... not to mention weewee tinted purple.  Not only is
>Gripple inebriating, it's also a mild diuretic thru the
>kidneys.... and it makes your garden grow sideways, too.

>Gesundt

Most sense I've seen on this mailing list for a long time.

--
John Rimmer
www.magonia.demon.co.uk
Official Sponsors of the 1999 Solar Eclipse





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:00:09 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:58:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:51:01 -0600
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jilain <jilain@plinet.com>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 20:45:39 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

><snip>

>>Now I have no opinion on whether crop circles are hoaxed en
>>masse or are "intelligently" made by some other "force" but if
>>the same statistics apply to crop circles as UFOs then roughly
>>95 percent can be explained.


The statistics are different. Of all the crop circles that were
found in the summer of 1997 in the Netherlands, about 80 % was
unexplained.

Btw. 'crop circle' is by now a misnomer. The circles don't just
arise in crop and most of them aren't circles. 'Anomalous soil
pictograms' would be a better term IMO.



            __________________________________________
           /    Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes    \
                      Henny van der Pluijm
                      hvdp@worldonline.nl

                       Technology Pages
                http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp
             \______________________________________/








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:43:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:14:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?



>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:51:01 -0600
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jilain <jilain@plinet.com>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

Hi Jilain

>It's that nagging little 5 percent that is the problem, don't ya
>think? It just won't seem to go away......

and that's why we are all in this game <G>
--
    In an infinite universe infinitely anything is possible.
                       Sean Jones
 Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm
            UFO page--http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:20:38 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:16:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:51:08 -0400

>>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:25:54 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>At least something like that, for God's sake. Not just bland
>>>general allegations. Another way to put this, John, is that I'm
>>>asking how large your sample is, when you say "remember that
>>>[abduction] claims can wreck people's lives." How many
>>>abductees, even approximately, do you imagine you know anything
>>>about, and what percentage of them ruined their lives?

>>>If you can't answer a question like that, you're just gossiping.

>>>Greg Sandow

>>And this from someone who admitted just a few months ago that
>>abduction researchers don't even have statistics on what
>>proportion of their subjects are Black, White or Hispanic.

>Exactly. I stated this very plainly, without first having to be
>challenged. (Though only concerning Budd Hopkins; I don't know
>about other researchers).

>I think I named it as a problem, but if I didn't, I've done so
>in the past about other missing abduction statistics, such as
>the percentage of abductees who have the allegedly unexplainable
>marks Budd so often talks about.

>Give it up, John. You're not making sense. This isn't a
>discussion about who's less scientific, abduction researchers or
>skeptics. I've always said abduction research has problems. It's
>a discussion about whether you, John Rimmer -- when you say
>abduction claims have ruined lives -- know what you're talking
>about.

>Greg Sandow

Hi all,

Has anybody given thought to the idea that the 'wrecked lives'
and the 'abduction experience' may be just symptoms of some
other condition?

Regards,
Leanne  ];-)






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:42:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:18:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:14:33 +0000
>From: Dave Bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>Are you suggesting an alien communication would be made with the
>people living on the land that contains the largest collection
>of weapons?

>Does that in some way make you feel superior??

>All the time this mentality continues we are not likely to be
>contacted.

>Try to remember we are all humans living on the planet we call
>Earth.

And that some of us might even have a sense of humor.

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 > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                  British Aerospace Sponsors Research Into

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 08:33:51
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:22:41 -0400
Subject: British Aerospace Sponsors Research Into


First of all thanks to Robert Chambers of British Aerospace for
making this information public. After his e-mail of June 29 to
various newsgroups I'll bring Project Greenglow's "objects
clause."

Stig

***

From: Rob Chambers <robert.chambers@bae.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Anyone for antigravity/propellantless propulsion?
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:04:06 +0000
Organization: British Aerospace Systems & Equipment


I would like to find out if anyone knows someone who would like
to give a presentation, talk, demonstration etc. of their
theory, concept or invention, in the UK to interested parties
from British Aerospace, UK academia and Ministry of Defence
(among others), or who has some good suggestions for further
development of their own theory or concept. I have been in
contact with Dr Ron Evans, head of the BAe-funded "Project
Greenglow" (http://www.greenglow.co.uk), who indicated that he
has had problems finding academics (or anyone else) willing to
speak about antigravity and related concepts. BAe has been
looking at antigrav in a poorly-funded way since 1986, but would
like to raise the level of interest in the UK and start testing
some concepts and examining some theories (time permitting).

Please reply by email to

robert.chambers@bae.co.uk

as I don't often have the opportunity to catch up with
newsgroups....

Rob....

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?" - Albert Einstein

***

And here's Project Greenglow's objects clause which you'll find
among the interesting links at the homepage mentioned above,

http://www.greenglow.co.uk

***


What is Project Greenglow?


British Aerospace is sponsoring a speculative research programme
in the realm of gravitational physics with the aim of initiating
some new areas of research and priming technology development,
with the hope that subsequent implementation, could lead to
significant advances in the aerospace industry. For historical
reasons we have called this programme project Greenglow.

We see Project Greenglow as the beginning of an adventure which
other enthusiastic scientists from academia, government and
industry might like to join, particularly those who believe that
the gravitational field is not restricted to passivity and who
have new theories, to the contrary, which they would like to
propose. The network provided by Project Greenglow could provide
the arena for publicising, debating and pursuing these ideas. We
feel that emphasis should be given to those theories which can
be tested in a laboratory at moderate cost and which, if
successful, could be developed into technical applications for
the aerospace industry.

Our approach to the research programme will be much along the
lines of the newly established NASA Breakthrough Propulsion
Physics Programme which has, as its central theme, the goal of
developing propellantless propulsion. We hope that there will be
elements where our two programmes come together and we will
support interaction between the two. Following the lead set by
NASA, it is intended that most of the administrative effort and
day-to-day communications will be conducted via the Internet.
Also, the aim will be to keep the research programme as open as
possible, within the restrictions imposed by academic ownership
and commercial return on investment, as we recognise that there
is a great deal of interest throughout the world on
gravitational research, particularly on the possibility of the
control of gravitational fields. We may wish to harness this
support in our quest for funding.

Due to the major interest in propellantless propulsion, Project
Greenglow will contain a part where Future Concept Engineers can
speculate on the impact which advances in gravitational
technology might have on the design and sphere of operation of
aerospace vehicles of the future. Artistic interpretations of
these ideas should further stir the imagination of the
scientists and engineers who participate in the project.

To determine the level of professional interest in this venture,
we are planning to hold a Discussion Meeting,where some of us
can get together and describe our present vision of Project
Greenglow and talk about the way forward. Details of the Time
and Venue will be posted on the Netlater. At this Meeting we
would hope to form a small Steering Group, whose main tasks will
be maintaining programme cohesiveness and awareness, the
arranging of a series of topical seminars and the planning of a
larger event (akin to the NASA BPP Workshop) next year for the
presentation of ideas and results and agreeing the next stage in
the collaborative programme.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:42:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:08:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:42:53 +0100
>From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>Bruce,

>Yes it was "done" under ambiant night conditions, ie darkness<g>,
>the BBC team used "nightvision" on the video camera to make the
>recording, and as Sean confirmed in an earlier post the circle
>researchers had got wind of the hoaxing attempt and were in the
>general area trying to track D+D+Co down, so use of any form of
>"lighting" out in the landscape would have been a dead givaway.

>It proved it could be done, thats all.
>It didn't/couldn't prove they were ALL hoaxes.


Neil,

With all due respect, this is the sort of thing those schooled
in the Amazing Randi branch of knowledge will use to confirm
that it -does- prove that the balance of crop circles are
hoaxes.

Their logic goes something like this: 'If I can reproduce it
through slight of hand, etc., then the (choose your paranormal
or otherwise unexplainable event) must be hoaxed by evil-minded,
avaricious charlatans bent on taking your money.'

I ran into this sort of medieval thinking with my brother-
in-law, an avowed atheist.  He saw the PBS (?) program on Doug
and Dave and concluded that _all_ crop circles are manmade (by
D&D no less). It made no difference to him that D&D are not
continent-hopping circle hoaxers; they are responsible for crop
circles. Case closed. Mystery solved.

How many others out there in TV Land have come to the same
conclusion?

Best regards,
Ron.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:59:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:19:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:46:05 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:20:30 -0700
>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Dear Mr Gilbert:

>>Somehow, I have difficulty seeing two fellows, late from some
>>pub, sucessfully oiling a pair of roller skates -- let alone
>>hoaxing a decent crop circle.

>Granted, you couldn't do it on Coors or Bud Lite or whatever you
>guys drink over there, but these boyos would probably have been
>drinking Wadworths 6X or Gale's HSB. After a few pints of those,
>crop-circles would be no problem - Mandelbrot figures, the lot.


Alright, I'd like to think I have a thick hide and can seperate
personal feelings from rational discussion, but Mr. Rimmer's
anti- American propaganda has reached a new height. Merely
because we can take in our alcoholic beverages without having to
use a _spoon_ does not mean that they are inferior to the Queen's
(or Jack or whatever's) ....fine products. I respect you
foreigners luv of that thick goo, but also understand that many
of us prefer whatever goes down the easiest and don't always feel
that less is more. Means to an end, afterall.

Too bad I could never con Jim Moseley into getting email, cause
we'd have a definite (drunken) catfight on our hands with this
one. Then again, I thought at the very least Dennis Stacy would
back me up on this and have already set you 'blokes' straight
..... *sigh*

Brigham


)+(
TBrigham@ksinc.net
http://zap.to/DevilsAdvocate  The Devil's Advocate
http://zap.to/MindPhuck  Operation MindPhuck
"Better to go hungry than to feast on lies."
)+(